Sitting of 25 October 1967

Preamble
The House met at Ten o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

TRAVEL CONCESSIONS FOR SEAMEN
10.5 a.m.
Mr. Hector Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for travel concessions for seamen, on returning from sea, to visit their families.
I do so in the terms of my Motion on the Order Paper, which is:
"That this House is of opinion that for social, family, economic and other reasons the withdrawal by British Railways of the cheap fare railway vouchers hitherto available to seamen and their families is wrong as it frustrates family reunions, deprives British Railways of fares, diminishes British Railways income and now calls upon Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Transport, by legislation or otherwise, to restore to British seamen and their families the relevant facilities which they have hitherto enjoyed."
I am supported by the National Union of Seamen, numbering thousands of seamen, and by a petition presented to me yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), who would be present today but for an unavoidable important engagement elsewhere. The petition, signed by 313 members of the Cunard line steamship "Sylvania," is in the following terms:
"We, the members of the above ship, wish to add our support to the protest over the withdrawal of the privilege railway voucher system since this has been stopped. We find many cases where this causes hardship to men and separation from families. We offer this protest in the hope that you can have this privilege reinstated or arrange for some similar scheme."
It would be an act of common justice to give seamen the cheap fares which I seek. The merchant seamen perform great services to the trade, industry and commerce of this country, services which are essential to Britain's exports and imports, and probably to Britain's stability. For years those services have been recognised by everyone, including
1636
the British Shipping Federation, the National Union of Seamen, the National Maritime Board and British Rail. Until two years ago British Rail recognised them in the appropriate and tangible way of giving seamen reduced fares from their port of landing to their homes. This was because seamen were often discharged at the end of a voyage at a different port from that of their engagement, and had to go home by railway. It was a fair, reasonable and humane facility, which enabled seamen to spend with their families their time ashore, which was often very short between voyages.
Suddenly, about two years ago, that long-enjoyed facility was withdrawn by British Rail, notwithstanding protests by the organisations I have already mentioned, which took the view that the family life of merchant seamen should be maintained and preserved, and not ruthlessly wrecked by continued absences from their families between voyages.
The National Union of Seamen, of which I have the honour of being a member, took the matter up. I asked a number of Parliamentary Questions on the subject, and correspondence ensued. On 4th July a letter from the National Maritime Board to British Railways supported the view that I am putting forward. It said:
"You will recall that on 23rd April last year your Board withdrew the concession which was granted to members of the Mercantile Marine. The National Maritime Board has, amongst other matters, recently been considering a revision of an agreement under which, in certain circumstances, seafarers are entitled to a rail fare concession from owners when discharged at a port other than the port of engagement. The shipowners have expressed their willingness to extend the concession to seafarers not at present covered by the agreement by granting them a warrant equivalent to 25 per cent. of the cost of a single journey. The purpose of this letter is to ask your Board whether they would be prepared to accept such a warrant and debit the British Shipping Federation Limited with 25 per cent. of the cost of a full single fare. At present you do, in fact, accept from the Federation railway warrants for the full fare."
The reply to that letter was negative and, indeed, surprising. It was very short. It was dated 10th July, 1967, and was in the following terms:
"Referring to your letter of 4th July, the British Shipping Federation have also asked me if it is possible to help them with this problem. I can only repeat what I have told

1637
the B.S.F., that one of the reasons for withdrawing the concession was to remove the paper work and so reduce administration costs. We cannot therefore agree to accept your suggestion, which would increase and complicate the accountancy work. I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful."
So am I, and so are all decent-minded people.
I submit that the warrant proposed by the National Maritime Board was fair and reasonable and based on a fair and reasonable suggestion. The rejection of the proposal by the British Railways Board on the grounds of paper work, administration costs and accountancy work was, in my submission, trivial, unworthy and an offence to reason.
In a further letter on 22nd August, 1967, to me, the British Railways Board actually admitted:
"We appreciate that the British Shipping Federation and the National Maritime Board wish seamen to continue to have this reduction."
But the British Railways Board contumaciously persists in refusing to withdraw the ban that it imposed upon the seamen in this respect.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hector Hughes.

TRAVEL CONCESSIONS FOR SEAMEN
Bill to provide for travel concessions for seamen, on returning from sea, to visit their families, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed.[Bill 322.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SEA FISHERIES (SHELLFISH) BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]
  10.15 a.m.
  The Chairman: The Amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) to Clause 5 and the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Crosby to Clause 20 are out of order. I shall, however, call the hon. Member for Crosby to move his Amendment to Schedule 1.
  Mr. Graham Page: Might I, on a point of order, ask for your guidance in this connection, Sir Eric? We are dealing with an entirely new procedure. If you tell me that these Amendments would have been out of order in any Bill or that they would not have been selected in the case of any Bill, then I cannot question it, but if there is any reason under the new procedure why the Amendments are not in order it would be a great help if the House were given some guidance on that.
  The Chairman: I am always anxious to help the Committee in these matters and appreciate that this is the first Bill that comes to us which is not merely pure consolidation but is also a Bill to deal with Amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. The position is that Amendments are permissible only in so far as they would have been permissible if it had been a pure consolidation Bill, which, of course, is very limited in scope, and also if they were within the scope of the Bill and fell within Amendments proposed by the Law Commission or the Scottish Law Commission.
  Mr. Graham Page: Further to that point of order, Sir Eric. I should be quite wrong, I am sure, in endeavouring to debate this point in any way, and this is only to get a guidance for the future. I understand, then, that an Amendment such as that to Clause 5, which is very

  1639
  closely related to the Amendment made on the recommendation of the Law Commission, has been thought to be not within the scope of the recommendation of the Law Commission.
  The Chairman: The proposed Amendments to Clause 5 go quite outside any of the recommendations of the Law Commission.
  With the permission of the Committee, I will put some of the Clauses collectively, first Clauses 1 to 20.
  Mr. Graham Page: I am sorry to interrupt again, Sir Eric, but I wish to comment on the proposition that Clause 5 and Clause 20 stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 1 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(CESSER OF RIGHT CONFFERED BY ORDER UNDER SECTION 1.)
Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Graham Page: A great deal of consideration was given to this Clause by the Joint Select Committee. Some of the subsections are introduced under No. 3 recommendation of the Law Commission. The reason for the recommendation was that the Law Commission came to the conclusion that if a person failed or refused to answer questions by an inspector there was no penalty for the failure or refusal.
The Law Commissions recommended that if there was any doubt on the point it should be removed and that refusal or failure to answer questions should be made an offence. That now appears in Clause 5(7) and it is an important new law to be introduced in this consolidation Bill. I question whether it should be introduced without further safeguards to the individual, in particular the safeguard which is almost invariably put into legislation where there is an offence for failure to answer questions put by some official.
Such an offence under, for example, recent agricultural Acts has always been accompanied by a provision that the person questioned should have the right to refuse to answer if question and answer would be in breach of the privilege which a client has in his communi-
1640
cations with his solicitor. This is a privilege which is frequently called "the solicitor's privilege" but it is wrong to call it that. It is actually the privilege of a client who consults his solicitor that the solicitor should not be questioned upon matters between the two.
But subsection (7) has now been introduced into the Bill without any such qualification, although we have recently had a further example of the qualification of privilege when a similar provision was introduced in the Companies Act, 1967. Indeed, I recall no previous occasion on which this point has been raised when it has not been conceded by the House. I submit that, in introducing this new law on the recommendations of the Law Commissions, there should have been a qualification to this effect.
The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): As always, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) put forward his argument with great reasonableness. Clause 5, and in particular subsection (7), is, in terms, as nearly as possible a verbatim re-enactment of Section 24(5) of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1962. The only change of the law which it makes and which was recommended by the Law Commissions is that it applies to the powers conferred on an inspector by subsection (3), thus removing a doubt. It is, therefore, in that respect a very good example of the application of consolidation with amendments within the restricted ambit appropriate to the term "consolidation". The kind of proposal that has been adumbrated would seek to make a different and substantial change in the Clause.
On the wider issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, I suggest that the whole matter should be considered in the context of the subsection. It is important to remember that, in a great number of instances, it will be in the interests of the grantee of the fishery rights that the inspector should have the full opportunity of making inquiry and collecting all the information that he can.
The right conferred by an Order under Clause 1 is valuable. Questions of fact relating to the appropriateness of its continuing in being must necessarily call for careful inquiry and investigation by an inspector and, as I have indicated, at

1641
least as often as not the outcome of that careful investigation can be expected to be to the advantage of the grantee.
The hon. Gentleman specifically referred to matters affecting the communications, for example, between solicitor and client and statements possibly possessing in certain cases an incriminatory character. Our belief is that this aspect of the matter—which. I agree, is most important—is sufficiently and adequately covered by the reference in the subsection as it stands to a refusal "or without reasonable excuse" failure to provide information.
I take the view, and recommend it to the Committee as the correct one, that the expression "reasonable excuse" gives sufficient protection and safeguard to any grantee or other person who may be affected by the application of the procedure that the Clause envisages. I trust, therefore, that the Committee will take the view that as the Clause and the subsection stand they meet the case and involve no such undesirable departure from precedent or principle as the hon. Gentleman has suggested they might on first view.
Mr. Graham Page: The Solicitor-General has given an unsatisfactory answer to a reasonable proposition and I would not wish the Clause to stand part as drafted. I suppose that it is a characteristic of every Government but particularly of this Government that there is a stubborn rejection of a perfectly nonpolitically controversial proposal from this side merely because, so it seems, the Government wish to hold on to their original drafting of a Statute.
If one has time, one eventually wears them down, as we have seen in recent legislation. Such proposals often go back to suggestions made on Second Reading and eventually are incorporated in the form of Lords Amendments after we have had time in which to drive them home to the Government throughout all the stages of the Bill.
In this case, however, we have not got the time. This is the last occasion on which the Bill can be amended, so that the Government are proposing to push it through without the normal qualifications of this sort of provision which have been accepted, after pressure, on several occasions in recent legislation, including taxa-
1642
tion, company and agricultural law. In all these cases, a qualification has been inserted to any provision such as we see in Clause 5(7).
The hon. and learned Solicitor-General has said that it is in the interests of the person questioned to answer these questions. It always is whenever a person is questioned. But it has been thought necessary in this case to provide that, if the questioner does not act in his own interest, he is a criminal. It is necessary to have some sanction when a person refuses to answer these questions. He may think it is not in his own interests to disclose communications between himself and his legal adviser, and the legal adviser may think that it is not in the interests of his client to answer those questions. In other branches of the law he is protected if he does not do so and he certainly should have been protected in this case.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 6 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20.—(ORDERS AND REGULATIONS.)
Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
10.30 a.m.
Mr. Graham Page: Clause 20 deals with Orders and Regulations and with Parliamentary control over the Orders made by the Minister under the Bill. In particular, it deals with Orders made under Section 17, which deals with a subject which caused some anxiety and to which the Joint Select Committee gave a great deal of consideration and the Clause was substantially amended. It was amended, on the recommendation of the Law Commission, so that the offence of taking lobsters in spawn should have the same penalties as the offence of taking crabs in spawn.
The anomaly between the penalties for those two offences had arisen quite accidentally. In the evidence given to the Joint Select Committee it was explained that the provision concerning the taking of lobsters in spawn had got into the Sea-Fishing Industry Act, 1933, in a most casual fashion. It was put into a Section the rest of which had nothing to do

1643
with it. The evidence before the Committee was that it seemed to have been put in as an afterthought and had nothing to do with the rest of the Section.
Had it been given full thought it might well have been included in those provisions which require any Order under them to be brought before the House. Subsection (2) of Clause 20 says:
"Any instrument containing an order under Section 1 of this Act shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
But when we come to Orders under Section 17 they merely have to be laid before Parliament. This is a repetition of the law as it stands under the 1933 Act. To that extent it is consolidation, but it is consolidation on the recommendation of the Royal Commission which recommended an alteration in the penalty. Therefore, once one accepts a recommendation of the Law Commission for an alteration of the law one can question it on other subjects as well. At least that is my submission. I submit that—
The Chairman: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but I cannot allow that proposition to pass without challenge. It is open to comment on any recommendation made by the Law Commission, but it is not open in Committee to introduce some new change in the law, however desirable hon. Members may think it, unless it arises from some specific recommendation of the Law Commission.
Mr. Page: Immediately I had said it, Sir Eric, I knew that I had expressed it in too wide terms. I think that my criticisms of Clause 20 come within the ambit of the recommendations of the Law Commission in asking that the two penalties be made the same.
The Chairman: I am afraid not. It might have been open to the hon. Member to have made some comments on Clause 17, which deals with penalties, but it is not open on Clause 20 to suggest that there should he any extension or change in the scope of Parliamentary control other than contained in the Acts which are being consolidated by this Bill.
Mr. Page: I do not wish to labour the point. I accept your Ruling, Sir Eric.
I would point out that under Section 17 there is no creation of the offence
1644
here. It gives the Minister power to make the offence by Order. The offence has been altered in Clause 17, and it was my thought that I could question it only when it comes to the making of the Order under Clause 20. However, I will not labour the point. I merely put it that under Clause 20 I would have hoped that we could have had subsection (2), the Parliamentary procedure, applying to all Orders under the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 21 to 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1.—(PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO MAKING OF ORDERS UNDER SECTION 1.)
Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 18, line 29, after "order", insert "and a summary thereof".
This provision in Schedule 1 arises out of a recommendation of the Law Commission concerning the publication of Orders. Paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 provides:
"Where the appropriate Minister makes an order under section 1 of this Act, the applicants for the order shall cause notice of the making of the order to be published in such manner as that Minister thinks sufficient …"
The Amendment would require not only notice of the making of the Order to be published, but a summary of that Order as well.
The recommendation of the Law Commission, which was the tenth recommendation that it made, was:
"Where an order under Part III of the Act of 1868 is made, Section 35 requires the applicants for the order to cause it to be published and circulated in such manner as the appropriate Minister thinks sufficient for giving information to all parties interested."
Then it points out:
"By virtue of Section 34(3) of the Act of 1962 the order is now made by statutory instrument and is printed and published by the Stationery Office and section 35 is in practice construed as requiring the applicants to publish only notice of the making of the order.
We recommend that section 35 be amended to conform with modern practice."
Then it points out:
"Effect is given to this recommendation in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the Bill."
There is a substantial change in the law here, albeit to conform with existing

1645
practice. The Law Commission's further recommendation repealing the relevant Section of the previous Acts said that although it used to be necessary to keep a copy of this Order available to those concerned and publish it and so on,
"There is no difficulty now, as there may have been in 1868, for any of those persons to obtain a copy of the order from the Stationery Office."
This is very naive. It is often difficult to obtain Orders from the Stationery Office, and, in the case of an Order for fisheries in the North of Scotland or somewhere like that, there would be the utmost difficulty in obtaining the information.
If there is to be a change in practice here, it should provide for persons concerned with an Order of this sort to know at least a summary of what it is about, the area it covers, and who will be affected by it. Often under these Orders there is power to the grantee to make certain charges, and this is very important to the public who are concerned with such an Order. The public should be informed not only that an Order has been made but about the effect of it. To inform the public, it would be simple to publish not only the date of the Order but also the explanatory note to it saying what it is about. Merely to see that an Order conferring the right of several fishery has been made on such and such a date gives no information at all to the public.
The Solicitor-General: In moving his Amendment, I am glad that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) forbore from anything in the character of general and unfounded strictures upon the Government for our attitude to the kind of point that he raises.
Orders conferring a right of several fishery or the right of regulating a fishery are usually fairly lengthy and detailed. As an example of the kind of detail that goes into them, one has in mind the area of sea over which the right is to be exercisable, which has to be defined precisely. That can be done only at considerable length. It would not be easy to produce an accurate summary which would be really informative, and an inaccurate summary would have great disadvantages and risks attaching to it.
I suggest that it is unnecessary to require the applicants to incur the extra
1646
expense which would result if the Amendment were accepted. The Amendment proposes that the applicants should provide the summary and, of course, the applicants are the persons who desire and hope to become grantees of the rights conferred. In the ordinary way, they will not be people who will find it easy to prepare, compose and provide a summary of a document of this kind, and I think that there ought to be reasonable consideration for them in dealing with the practicalities of the matter.
Under normal practice, applicants are required to publish notice of the making of an Order in a local newspaper, and that is a comparatively easy action to perform. To impose heavier burdens upon them would be undesirable, I submit, and anything in the nature of a fairly lengthy summary would involve a not negligible increase in cost.
10.45 a.m.
The Committee will observe that, under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, the applicants are required to publish a copy of the draft order. Those affected by the Order will, therefore, become aware of its contents and its provisions at that stage. It is true that, when the Order is made, it may differ from the draft, but it is unlikely to do so in practice unless an inquiry is held under paragraphs 4 or 5 of the Schedule. Notice of the inquiry has to be published. It is believed that persons affected by the Order will obtain a copy from the Stationery Office and will not rely on a summary in the Press.
The Order and its contents are available to those concerned and, as I have endeavoured to indicate, in the case of a person sufficiently interested in the content of the Order, it is more likely than not that he will want to see the whole Order and will not be satisfied with a mere summary.
In those circumstances, to require publication of a summary would really be balancing one thing with another to serve no useful purpose.
Amendment negatived.
Schedule agreed to.
Schedules 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill reported without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

SEA FISH (CONSERVATION) BILL [Lords]
Considered in Committee.
[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]
The Chairman: If it would be for the convenience of the Committee, I propose to put the Question, That the Clauses stand part of the Bill, collectively.
Mr. Graham Page: Sir Eric, I wish to question Clause 10, if you would put that separately.
The Chairman: So be it.
Clauses 1 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.—(MEASURES FOR INCREASE OR IMPROVEMENT OF MARINE RESOURCES.)
Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Graham Page: Clause 10 provides measures for the increase or improvement of marine resources, and the long Title of the Bill describes it, among other things, as a consolidation Bill
"… authorising measures for the increase or improvement of marine resources."
I was curious to know what are "marine resources".
Turning to the table of derivations, Clause 10 is a consolidation of Section 4 of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1959. It will be seen from Section 4 of that Act that Clause 10 is, word for word, a repeat of subsection (1) of that Section, but that it omits subsection (2). As this is a consolidation Measure I can to that extent query whether Clause 10 is a consolidation of the law contained in Section 4 of the 1959 Act. The important omission, which is contained in Section 4(2) of that Act, is:
"Any expenses incurred by the Ministers under this section shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament."
The Schedule to the Bill repeals Sections 4 to 8 of that Act, and it seems to me that in consolidating the improvements concerning marine resources this consolidation Measure gives Ministers power to spend money on marine resources, but deprives Parliament of control of that money, because it omits Section 4(2) of
1648
the 1959 Act. We are told, in the table of derivations, that this power is included in Clause 10, but on the face of it it is not. I hope that the Solicitor-General can give us some explanation of the position. What has happened to Section 4(2) of the 1959 Act?
The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): My understanding of the point raised by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is that the provisions of Section 4(2) of the 1959 Act are contained in Clause 19(1) of this consolidation Measure. I offer that explanation to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that if he investigates the matter he will find that that is so, and I hope that his anxieties in this respect will, therefore, be put at rest.
Mr. Graham Page: I have now looked at Clause 19, and I find that it includes expenses incurred under Clause 10. There remains my complaint that the Bill does not include any definition of marine resources, but I doubt whether the hon. and learned Gentleman can put that right at this stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 11 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

COUNTRYSIDE (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]
10.53 a.m.
Mr. Anthony Stodart: I do not want to oppose the Motion, but I wish to make a protest in that the situation which faces us seems to be similar, though slightly worse, than that which was mentioned yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) in connection with the Leasehold Reform Bill.

1649
The Amendments to that Bill were received by my hon. Friend at 5 o'clock on the previous evening. In this case the Amendments were not available in the Vote Office until half-past nine this morning. It means that although from the word "go" this has been a noncontroversial Bill, a Measure on which I am sure the Minister will agree there was a great deal of co-operation between the two sides in Committee upstairs, we are faced with considerable difficulty in absorbing the import of the Lords Amendments, many of which resulted from discussions held only yesterday. I hope that the Minister will make representations to the necessary quarters to see that we are not treated in this way on another occasion.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Clause 3.—(DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.)
Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 4, line 22, leave out "functions of the Commission" and insert "countryside".
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This drafting Amendment removes any doubt which there might be that the Secretary of State and other Ministers can call on the advice of the Commission on any countryside matter. I think that it will improve the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4.—(POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.)
Lords Amendment No. 2: In page 5, line 20, at end insert:
"(i) for the purpose of providing themselves with office or other accommodation in connection with the exercise of any of their functions, to acquire land in manner provided by section 6(1)(a) below, to erect and maintain buildings or other structures thereon, and, when the land is no longer required for such purpose, to dispose of it in manner provided by the said section 6;"
Dr. Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment puts beyond doubt that the Commission may, with the con-
1650
sent of the Secretary of State, lease, buy, or build such offices, as they require for the performance of their functions.
Mr. Stodart: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is your experience that I am a person who likes brevity. The shorter a Bill and the more lucid it is, the more I like it. I am ready to accept what the Minister says, that the Amendment puts the matter beyond a shadow of doubt, but is it really necessary? Similar words did not appear in the Highlands and Islands Development Bill which contained words identical with many of those in Clause 6 of this Measure.
I think that subsection (1, a), which gives the Commission power to acquire land, and subsection (1, b), which allows it to erect buildings, put beyond a shadow of doubt the fact that these buildings could be offices. I suppose that they could be other buildings, such as residential ones, but they certainly could be offices, and when one remembers that Clause 5 describes one of the Commission's functions as preparing and submitting proposals, surely the implication of that is that an office will be used for doing so? I should have thought that these words were not necessary.
I do not know whether in going as far as the Minister wishes to do in adding these words to the Bill he will be able to put on record now where he proposes to have these offices? I ask that because it is a matter of considerable curiosity to many of us.
Dr. Mabon: I think that that is putting it mildly. I understand the hon. Gentleman's irritation at our having to adopt this procedure, but it is due to a lack of time. This is an agreed Measure, and I, too, regret that we have run into this difficulty. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman goes into the matter thoroughly—and I am sure that he would have done so had he had more time—he will find that the Highlands and Islands Development Act dealt with powers of acquisition which were pretty extensive, whereas this Measure restricts the power to development projects.
In Committee we were asked to be rather precise about the wording of the Bill. This Amendment—and many others —is an earnest attempt to try to meet some of the objections put forward in Committee. We have tried to spell out

1651
the provisions more clearly in legal terms in this and other Amendments, and I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman might bless us on this Amendment, even if he does not agree with us on many others.
Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11.—(RIGHTS OF PUBLIC WHERE ACCESS AGREEMENT OR ORDER IN FORCE.)
Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 9, line 26, leave out from "without" to "or" in line 27 and insert "causing damage".
11.0 a.m.
Dr. Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a useful drafting Amendment which brings in better words and expresses the provision more succinctly, as we were striving to do in Committee. I think that the hon. Member will agree that this is a good Amendment.
Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12.—(COMMISSION TO CONSULT WITH LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES ON ACCESS REQUIREMENTS OF THEIR AREAS.)
Lords Amendment No. 4: In page 11, line 10, after "authorities" insert:
"and with such bodies as appear to the Commission to be representative of owners or occupiers of land".
Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
Dr. Mabon: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
These Amendments provide a solution to the problem upon which we had a lengthy argument in Committee, of the question who should be consulted at this stage of consideration. At that time I resisted the idea that every owner and every occupier who might be affected ought to be consulted at that stage. The Opposition quite reasonably made the point that this was wrong and that although in practical terms it might not be possible some mechanism should be devised. This is the mechanism that we have agreed on, and I commend it to the House.
Mr. Stodart: This is the fourth addendum that has been suggested. There was one upstairs, another on Report, a further in Committee in another place, and finally this one. In the circumstances, I merely say that I am grateful that the Government have at last agreed that clarification of this point is a good thing.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 13.—(ACCESS AGREEMENTS.)
Lords Amendment No. 7: In page 11, line 36, leave out "either irrevocably or".
Dr. Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is quite clear, straightforward and desirable.
Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19.—(SUSPENSION OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO AVOID RISK OF FIRE.)
Lords Amendment No. 8: In page 19, line 20, leave out "the land" and insert
"such parts of the land and".
Dr. Mabon: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This again is a drafting Amendment. It makes the intention clearer.
Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24.—(ACQUISITION BY LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES OF LAND FOR PUBLIC ACCESS.)
Lords Amendment No. 9: In page 22, line 22, after "authority" insert:
", if it appears to them impracticable to obtain such access by an access agreement or access order,".
Dr. Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can take Lords Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
Dr. Mabon: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This Amendment follows closely on a similar Amendment to Clause 31(1), which deals with public path orders, which was made in the Scottish Standing Committee as

1653
a result of the discussions which I had with the Scottish Landowners' Federation and the National Fanners' Union. It is a desirable Amendment. Similarly, Amendment No. 10 is desirable. Both my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and I have taken every opportunity to emphasise that access orders or compulsory acquisition orders were measures of last resort. In the Bill as drafted there was some doubt whether a local authority would have power to acquire land by agreement. This makes the position clear. Perhaps we can take also Lords Amendment No. 12, in Clause 25, which is similar to Amendment No. 11.
Mr. Speaker: So be it.
Dr. Mabon: These are Amendments of substance which make it clear that subsection (2) in both Clauses can be deleted. They are ob majorem cautelam. We do not need to have subsection (2) in either Clause, because we believe that subsection (1) is as extensive as we would seek to go even if we had both the other subsections. The Government feel that subsection (1) contains the powers that we desire and that subsection (2) need not be written into the Bill.
Mr. Stodart: The hon. Member is perhaps treading dangerously when he quotes law at us. It makes me think that one or two of his hon. Friends, whose names I would not mention if the positions in the House were reversed, would undoubtedly have wished for a full explanation in the House of the Scottish system of feu and excambion, which many hon. Members will not understand. As we are anxious to make progress, however, I merely say that these Amendments are improvements.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 26.—(MAPS OF LAND SUBJECT TO PUBLIC ACCESS.)
Lords Amendment No. 13: In page 24, line 18, after "map" insert:
"and of the notices referred to in paragraph (b) below"
Dr. Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can take Lords Amendments Nos. 14 and 15.
Dr. Mabon: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Everyone would agree that it is in all our interests for details of access land and any restrictions applying to it to be as widely publicised as possible. These Amendments are designed to facilitate this, and I commend them to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 28.—(BOUNDARY NOTICES.)
Lords Amendment No. 16: In page 25, 33, after "notices" insert "or other means of".
Dr. Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can take Lords Amendment No. 17, in Clause 29.
Dr. Mabon: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This is a useful Amendment because the erection of distinctive boundary pillars or posts could be as effective a way of indicating the boundaries of access land as the display of formal notices.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29.—(POWER OF LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO WORK CARRIED OUT BY OTHER PERSONS.)
Lords Amendment No. 18: In page 25, line 42, at end insert "or section 26(2) above".
Dr. Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment repairing a minor omission.
Question put and agreed to.

Clause 38.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO CREATION, CLOSURE AND DIVERSION OF PUBLIC PATHS.)
Lords Amendment No. 19: In page 32, line 41, leave out from beginning to "which" and insert:
"under, in, upon, over, along or across"
Dr. Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps with this we could comfortably take Lords Amendment No. 20, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: So be it.
Dr. Mabon: Both Amendments deal with the same drafting point. The three extra prepositions are needed to make the wording sufficiently comprehensive to cover all the possibilities as precedented in other Acts including the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, section 111(2).
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO LONG-DISTANCE ROUTES.)
Lords Amendment No. 21: In page 33, line 35, at end insert:
"for the provision, maintenance and enjoyment of the route, and without prejudice to that generality".
Dr. Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that with this Amendment we could take Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24.
Mr. Speaker: So be it.
Dr. Mabon: These Amendments—in particular that which contains the words "without prejudice to that generality" ensure that the Commission will not be prevented, in preparing a report of a long-distance route, from making proposals about any facilities which it considers should appropriately be provided. We touched upon this point in Committee, and these Amendments represent an improvement.
Mr. Stodart: I should like to ask one question. Can the Minister explain the
1656
omission of lines 14 to 20? Their deletion seems to remove the responsibility which rests upon a local authority to say something about the expenditure incurred on various works.
Dr. Mabon: This is relative to what the Commission is trying to do in developing these matters. We are trying to ensure that the Commission is not prevented, by the existence of this Clause in its previous form, from preparing a report on a long-distance route. People could argue that the consequences of preparing reports and so on would mean that certain obligations are being incurred by certain authorities. We are trying to make sure that the Commission can do this without involving itself in all these difficulties.
The four Amendments hang together, as was clearly made out in another place. If the hon. Member will search the records—I realise that it is only now becoming available; this illustrates our difficulties—he will see that the point is readily taken care of. If I have not explained the situation properly I will write to the hon. Member and make it clear.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 46.—(PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF WAY.)
Lords Amendment No. 25: In page 39, line 1, leave out from "maintenance" to end of line 5.
Dr. Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
When subsection (2) was added in Standing Committee I undertook that the Government would look into the effect of the last four lines. The result of our consideration is the present Amendment. The words which it deletes were taken from the similar provision relating to district councils in Section 29 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894. These are different circumstances, but if a local authority exercises the permissive power which the Clause gives to maintain a public right of way it is only fair, in 1967, that it should be possible for it to be held responsible for damages

1657
arising from the way in which it has done the maintenance. This is a reasonable compromise. It is one that I hinted at, but I could not find the words earlier in our proceedings.
Mr. Stodart: In our discussions upstairs, this point was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) as a possible objection to the hon. Gentleman's moving to add subsection (2). My hon. and learned Friend pointed out the difficulty. I am glad that the Minister has found that that advice was wise, as I felt sure that it would be. It shows the value of our being able to assist the Government on their legal problems in the absence of a Law Officer for Scotland.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 57.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO BYELAWS.)
Lords Amendment No. 28: In page 45, line 28, after "authority" insert "or an Electricity Board".
Dr. Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
With this Amendment, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we take also Lords Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 32, 42 and 45.
Mr. Speaker: If the House has no objection, so be it.
Dr. Mabon: These Amendments are concerned with empowering the two electricity boards in Scotland to provide recreational facilities. We agreed in Committee that that would be desirable. The boards own large tracts of land and water. Both they and the Government feel it right that they should have clear powers to make the most of the recreational potential of their property.
The Amendments put the boards in the same position as Clauses 63, 64 and 67, put local water authorities: that is, they can provide facilities and charge for them or let them, they can provide facilities jointly with other persons and receive contributions from other persons or bodies towards their cost and they can
1658
make byelaws or appoint wardens. Hitherto, the North Board, by virtue of its "social clause", has been better able to provide recreational facilities for the public than has the South Board. The Amendments ensure that both boards will have these powers.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 58.—(POWERS OF THE FORESTRY COMMISSIONERS.)
Lords Amendment No. 33: In page 46, line 19, at end insert:
"() The definition of "public open space" in section 9(6) of the Forestry Act 1967 shall be amended by inserting after "1949" the words "or of Part II or section 48 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967"."
Dr. Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment designed to repair an unintentional ommission from the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.

Clause 61.—(IMPROVEMENT OF WATERWAYS FOR PURPOSES OF OPEN-AIR RECREATION.)
Lords Amendment No. 34: In page 48, line 4, at beginning insert:
"Subject to the provisions of the next following section,"
Dr. Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we take at the same time Lords Amendments Nos. 36 to 40.
Mr. Speaker: If there is no objection, so be it.
Dr. Mabon: These are related Amendments. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) will recall the fears that were expressed in another place that Clauses 61 to 63 gave sweeping powers to local authorities to do things on privately-owned land without consulting owners or occupiers or following the normal procedures. The Clauses were not intended to have that effect.
We have stressed throughout our strong desire that the Commission and local

1659
authorities should achieve their objects by consultation and persuasion. These six Amendments to Clauses 61 to 63 make it plain that the powers which they give can be exercised only by agreement with persons having an interest in the land to which they relate or after completion of the ordinary statutory procedures relating to access orders or compulsory purchase. This is testimony of our sincerity in this regard.
11.15 a.m.
Mr. Stodart: This emphasises what was said from the Opposition benches from the moment the Bill was introduced, that if the Bill, which meets, I think, with general approval from all parties and interests in Scotland, is to be successful, it will depend almost entirely on sufficient information being given to people about what will happen and on people being consulted concerning access routes and paths.
Although I dare say that the Minister of State could shoot me down in saying that I welcome the addition of these words, having criticised the addition of certain other words earlier, these are valuable words as they place beyond any shadow of doubt that what we regard as important for the success of the Bill will take place.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords Amendment No. 35: In page 48, line 10, at end insert:
"but in doing so shall take into consideration the disturbance of any fishing rights over the waterway which may be caused thereby."
Dr. Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment inserts a useful and specific reminder to local planning authorities to bear in mind the possible disturbance which their proposals to provide recreational facilities may have on fishing rights.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 63.—(PROVISION OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES BY LOCAL WATER AUTHORITIES.)
Lords Amendment No. 41: In page 52, line 24, at end insert:
1660
",and any reference to a local water authority shall be construed as including a reference to a water development board within the meaning of the Water (Scotland) Act 1967."
Dr. Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment and Lords Amendment No. 44 are drafting Amendments consequential upon the enacting of the Water (Scotland) Act.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendtnent agreed to.

Clause 64.—(WARDENS.)
Lords Amendment No. 43: In page 53, leave out lines 1 to 3.
Dr. Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
As hon. Members know, access agreements may, if the owner sees nothing against it, include excepted land. Any necessary restrictions would be incorporated in the agreement. Plainly, however, wardens should be able to act on any access land. The proviso which the Amendment deletes is, therefore, not apt in a Clause such as the one we have described earlier. It is, therefore, right to delete it. The Amendment does so.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 70.—(ACCOUNTS AND REPORTS OF THE COMMISSION.)
Lords Amendment No. 46: In page 56, line 29, after "year" insert "subsequent to 1967".
Dr. Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a commonsense Amendment to take account of the fact that, with the best will in the world, the Commission is unlikely to have anything of significance to report in the current year.
Question put and agreed to.

Clause 74.—(POWERS OF ENTRY.)
Lords Amendment No. 47: In page 58, line 28, leave out "seven" and insert "fourteen".
Dr. Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment increases from 7 to 14 days the period of notice. This is what, after consultation, we thought should be done.
Mr. Stodart: I would like to welcome this, and to express mild surprise, in view of the fact that we argued this extensively on a previous matter—the Highland Development Board case—where notice has only to be 48 hours or seven days in the case of residential property. This is very much a step in the right direction.
Dr. Mabon: The circumstances are quite different. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that I gave a number of undertakings, some very specific and some only mild hints, of what might be done. I thought that I had done the latter in this case. Anyway, it is commendable that we should agree.
Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 3.—(PROVISIONS AS TO MAKING, CONFIRMATION, COMING INTO OPERATION AND VALIDITY OF CERTAIN ORDERS.)
Lords Amendment No. 48: In page 66, line 2, after "aforesaid" insert:
"if in his opinion it is not reasonably practicable to do so".
Dr. Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
As drafted the Bill did not give any guidance about the kind of circumstances in which the Secretary of State would direct, as the normal procedure, that the giving of notice of an access order should be dispensed with. This Amendment repairs the omission.
Question put and agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neil McBride.]

NORTHERN IRELAND
11.20 a.m.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: It would be accepted by all Members of the House that it is a matter of regret that such a short time is left today to debate the Northern Ireland region. Since we last debated the region, over 14 months ago, every other region has been debated many times over. It would probably be agreed that the problems in Northern Ireland are of such importance that a good deal more time should have been given by the Government to debate them.
The subject was last discussed when I raised it on the Consolidation Fund. I had sincerely hoped that when Northern Ireland was next discussed dramatic changes would have taken place there. It is with a sense of deep disappointment that I stand here today and tell the House that no changes have taken place in Northern Ireland since the subject was last debated.
Mr. John E. Maginnis: Except for the rise in unemployment.
Mr. Fitt: We have certainly had an increase in unemployment, which has affected every other region in the United Kingdom. I am delighted to hear that interjection from another Northern Ireland representative, because it gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to the present Government here and to say that Northern Ireland has received more by way of financial assistance than any other region. The Government have received very little thanks for that. If the Tory representatives from Northern Ireland were being honest with themselves they would thank the Labour administration for helping the Northern Ireland economy.
Mark Arnold Foster compiled, and published in The Guardian a statistical analysis pointing out very clearly, that over and above all tax collected in Northern Ireland, it cost the British taxpayer and Exchequer £117 million per year to subsidise Northern Ireland. That is a vast figure and, since it has been published, further financial assistance has been provided.
In his Budget speech this year the Chancellor announced that a further £50 million in loans would be given to the

1663
Northern Ireland region for public authority and local authority works. I felt that before that money was given to the Northern Ireland Government, strings should be attached to it, so that we should have some say as to how it was spent. That money, given to the Northern Ireland Tories, is being spent in the areas where they will gain the most electoral support.[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] In the City of Derry, the town of Newry and in Strabane not one cent of that £50 million has been received, yet it was given to the Northern Ireland Government for the development of those areas.
An Hon. Member: Totally untrue.
Mr. Fitt: Within the past few months a further £1,500,000 has been given to the Northern Ireland Government to plough into areas of high unemployment. The British Government are financially guaranteeing the building of two of the largest tankers to be built in the United Kingdom. Allied to this project we have a financial guarantee by the British Government of the building of an enormous dry dock at Belfast. The financial guarantees amount to something like £20 million or £30 million.
There is no other area within the United Kingdom which has received such financial assistance. It ill behoves any Tory from Northern Ireland to attempt to criticise the work of this Labour administration. Those very Members are worthy of criticism, because in spite of these vast sums of money given to the Northern Ireland Government, we still have the position that in the City of Derry, there are 5,000 unemployed—representing 20 per cent. of the male population and 13·9 per cent. of the female population. In Newry there is 19 per cent. of the male population unemployed and 11·9 per cent. of the female population. In Omagh the figures are 14 per cent. male unemployed and 8·9 per cent. female. In Strabane it is 25 per cent. male—one man in every four—and 9.8 per cent. for females.
Most hon. Members on this side of the House at least will agree with me that these are figures which would not be tolerated in any other area.[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The reason why these figures have reached such a height is because these areas are anti-Unionist
1664
areas and the Northern Ireland Government have deliberately, over the years, engaged in a policy of industrial isolation because of the electoral complexion of such areas.
All reasonable people, on whatever side of the House, should condemn this policy. No matter what the political complexion of an area may be in this part of the United Kingdom it is admitted by Members of all political parties that the people in it are entitled to a home and a job. This is not how the Northern Ireland Unionists see it. Before any further financial assistance is given by this Government strings should be attached saying where the money is to be spent—where the need is greatest. I say this as an Irishman, but principally as a Socialist, sitting on the Socialist benches of this House.
There is a figure of 8 per cent. unemployed in the Northern Ireland region, but there is a region within a region. It is this which is the victim of the Unionist machinations and policy, to make quite certain that these people will not have jobs in their own areas, but will be denied homes and be forced to emigrate to Great Britain, thereby taking away a danger which would otherwise arise, threatening the Unionist electoral representation.
All that I ask for my constituents are the same rights and privileges which are enjoyed by every other British subject. I do not think it is too much to ask. When I raised this subject last I made a very reasonable request that the citizens of Northern Ireland, who are allegedly an integral part of the United Kingdom, should have the benefit of the "one man one vote" system, operating as it does in every other United Kingdom constituency, for local and central government. This is not an outlandish request. I realise that in making such a reasonable request I will meet violent opposition from the members of the Unionist Party because they appreciate that, if such a proposal were accepted, it would affect them electorally.
The people of Northern Ireland have great respect for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. They appreciate the stand he has taken against discrimination in this country. My right hon. Friend has thought it important to introduce legislation to protect minorities;

1665
Pakistanis, Indians and other immigrants to Britain. If Her Majesty's Government consider it necessary to have protective legislation of this kind, how much more necessary it is that this same protection is given to United Kingdom citizens in Northern Ireland. I press here and now for all the legislation that has been introduced to protect minorities in this country to be made applicable to Northern Ireland.
Why, in Northern Ireland, do we not have an office of the Parliamentary Commissioner? If it is good enough for Manchester it is good enough for Northern Ireland. I appreciate that by asking for the protection of this type of legislation I am seeking to erode the edifice of Unionism and Toryism in Northern Ireland, but in doing so I ask for the support of every liberal-minded hon. Member in this House.
I also appreciate the other difficulties which are facing the Home Secretary. Perhaps he does not want to bring about another constitutional crisis in relation to Northern Ireland. Her Majesty's Government face an acute economic problem, the problem of Rhodesia, of Vietnam, of the Middle East, of our balance of payments and so on. Despite these other urgent problems, it is my duty, as the representative of West Belfast, to ask for attention to be paid to Northern Ireland affairs, which, in my opinion, are very low on the agenda of this House. However, I know that I have the wholehearted support of my hon. Friends, in addition to the support of some hon. Gentlemen opposite, in demanding that Northern Ireland affairs be given more consideration.
If the Home Secretary considers—and he has my support in this—that it is important to have race relations legislation and to extend it, I urge him to ensure that that legislation is extended to cover religious discrimination, for this type of discrimination in Northern Ireland can be far more vicious and soul-destroying than any action which may be taken against coloured immigrants.
The Belfast Telegraph, a newspaper which is recognised as normally being a supporter of the Unionist Administration in Northern Ireland—although it is also known for trying to get away from certain old ideas and calling for a more
1666
liberal attitude—felt it important to write an editorial in the Saturday, 30th September, issue headed, "Sublime stupidity". Under that heading the newspaper stated:
"The Minister of Education began it. Reconstituting the Employment Service Board, he appointed 33 members, chiefly Education Committee nominees. At the most, three were Roman Catholic. The Minister of Health followed with the Hospitals Authority (22 members, two Catholics) and the General Health Service Board (24 members, two Catholics)."
The editorial went on:
"Here is the old old story, so old that it has almost passed without remark. But this time it makes nonsense of the Prime Minister and all that is said about a bridge-building policy. An opportunity to invite a larger number of Roman Catholics to participate in public service could not have been more opportune. In the event, not one additional appointment was made. Should this be?"
The editorial went on to question the sincerity of the Northern Ireland Prime Minister.
Sir Knox Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman will recall that he drew the attention of the Northern Ireland Parliament to an advertisement which appeared in a local newspaper, in which it was stated
"None but Roman Catholics need apply."
I imagine that he would also include that in his strictures.
Mr. Fitt: My hon. Friends will remember that I happened to be in Westminster when that advertisement appeared. I was incensed by it. I made inquiries in the Northern Ireland Parliament and asked the Minister for Home Affairs to carry out an investigation. He did and, in reply to me a few days later, said he had found that the advertisement was authentic. I then made further inquiries. What he regarded as authenticity was this: a man went into the newspaper office, asked for the advertisement to be inserted and paid for it. In fact, no job there was available, no such firm existed and, what is more, it was done by supporters of the Unionist Party in an attempt—[Interruption.]
Sir Knox Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong and if anyone wishes to read the exchanges which took place in Parliament there on this subject he need only refer to the Northern

1667
Ireland House of Commons HANSARD for 11th May, and at columns 1173 to 1175 he will see exactly what happened. The hon. Gentleman made no objection at the time. There was an inquiry and this was found to have been a perfectly authentic advertisement. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his views about whether it should be regarded as discriminatory, but the facts are there.
Mr. Fitt: I have said what I have said without hesitation. Indeed, I have now discovered the name of the person who placed the advertisement. I am referring to a member of the Unionist Party—[HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] I give an undertaking to the Home Secretary that I will send him the name and address of this person—[Interruption.]
Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friends and I think as much of this declaration on his part as we thought of the one he made in this House about telephone tapping by the Unionist Party and the fact that it had been admitted in the Northern Ireland Parliament? On that occasion we were told that evidence would be submitted to the Prime Minister. Have we seen any such evidence? When are we likely to see it? Or will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that assertion now, because until he does—[Interruption.]
Mr. Fitt: No.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order. Is it in order for hon. Gentlemen opposite to make speeches when they are supposed to be intervening? Should not they wait until they have an opportunity to speak?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. Mr. Fitt.
Mr. Fitt: I had hoped that there would not be too many interventions. The more that hon. Gentlemen opposite intervene and stop me speaking the more they will be limiting their own time to speak.
It will be remembered that on two or three occasions I have had an opportunity to speak about Northern Ireland affairs in this House. Two days after I spoke on this issue the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr)
1668
stood at the Dispatch Box in a foreign affairs debate and claimed that I had made wild assertions. He claimed that it was all lies and that nothing like this was happening in Northern Ireland. He more or less said, "Shipmates do not believe him, because he is a liar".
Only one way existed to prove or disprove my allegations. On that occasion I took the only way out. I took a number of my hon. Friends to Northern Ireland to see for themselves. I took them to the area to see at first hand the charges I had levelled at the Northern Ireland Government; and they came back convinced of the justness and rightness of my accusations. They have had talks with the Home Secretary about it and I am, therefore, supported by them today—although before me is a galaxy of talent in the shape of 11 Tories opposite. Suffice to say that my hon. Friends understand the situation in Northern Ireland.
We have a severe economic burden in Northern Ireland, but any help that the Westminster Government has given to the region will not gain the British Labour Party a single vote, because the Unionist Party takes all the credit for anything this Government have done to alleviate unemployment. Two or three months ago, when the unemployment figures were very high, the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland had discussions here with the Cabinet, and the Minister of Commerce had discussions with the Cabinet and so did the Minister of Finance. Each one of them was vying with the other for the credit, saying: "I went to Whitehall and I wrung this assistance from the British Government. They did not want to give us anything, but I got it." Not one of the local papers said that the British administration wanted to alleviate the unemployment situation—the Unionists took all the credit, saying, "We went to London and demanded what you need to keep your jobs." I therefore ask the British Government to look again at the way they deal with the Northern Ireland Government.
We do not have a Parliamentary Commissioner in Northern Ireland at the moment, but I suggest that we should have an economic Ombudsman—to call him for want of a better name; a person in this Government who could act as

1669
liaison officer between the Northern Ireland Government and this Government on questions of development in Northern Ireland. He would be aware, I am sure, of the discrimination that takes place in Derry, Newry, Strabane and other areas, and would take steps, perhaps, to remedy that situation. That would stop the continuous to-ing and fro-ing by various Northern Ireland Ministers all trying to get the credit and ensure their further election to the Northern Ireland Parliament.
I understand that legislation is pending relating to the social services agreement which exists between this Parliament and the Northern Ireland Parliament by which every single cent paid out in Northern Ireland comes from the British taxpayer. The Northern Ireland Exchequer does not contribute one halfpenny. Yet, at election time, the Unionists say: "Just look at the great social benefits we have"—conveniently forgetting to add that those benefits are paid for by the British taxpayer.
The British taxpayer gets very little thanks for what he pays out. We remember the activities of the 12 Tory Unionist Members who, from 1964 to 1966, tried their damndest to bring about the downfall of the British Administration. That was scant thanks for the help that was given. Members of this Parliament should take a long time to forget those very troublesome days, when the British Government was put in peril by the activities of those 12 Members. I understand that such legislation is pending, but rumours have got abroad in Northern Ireland that the British Government may be reluctant to introduce it in case it should lead to a whole debate on Northern Ireland. I urge the Government, if it is necessary to introduce that legislation, to introduce it as early as possible.
I also understand that in a recent White Paper the Lord Chancellor recently referred to the effects of Common Market entry on Northern Ireland, and stated that a further extension should be given to the Northern Ireland Parliament if and when we enter the Common Market. The British Government should be very reluctant to give further power to the Northern Ireland Parliament.
1670
I understand, too, that legislation is pending to enable the British Government to appoint a sixth High Court judge in Northern Ireland and that this will entail amendment of the existing Government of Ireland Act, 1920—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has managed to discuss under this Motion almost every subject he has wished to discuss, but the one thing he should not discuss is new legislation.
Mr. Fitt: I readily accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I only say that, if such legislation is pending, the Government should make sure of establishing guarantees.
A very important point affects my constituency in the Northern Ireland Parliament—the Dock Division of Belfast; not Belfast West. A portion of the old Victoria Barracks, formerly held by the Minister of Defence, has been given to the Belfast Corporation for housing purposes. The Ministry of Defence retained 9½ acres, and in a Parliamentary Question I asked the Minister of Defence whether he would be prepared to give up that remaining 9½ acres for housing development in order to help to relieve the serious land famine in Belfast. The reply was that the Ministry would be quite prepared to give up the land to the Northern Ireland Government or the Belfast Corporation. There has since been a decided reluctance by the Northern Ireland Government and by the city to acquire that land for housing purposes, on the ground that it would upset the present electoral machinery there. So we do not have houses built because it might affect the seats—
Sir Knox Cunningham: That is not true.
Mr. Fitt: I understand that the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) is to appear on B.B.C. Television in Northern Ireland on Sunday, and I can assure him that the whole population there is waiting with bated breath to hear him. I can assure him that the T.A.M. rating will go up by 100 per cent.—
Sir Knox Cunningham: Also untrue.
Mr. Fitt: I began my remarks by saying that 14 months have elapsed since we

1671
last had a debate on Northern Ireland and I should have thought that dramatic reforms would have taken place in that time. In this country they would not be regarded as dramatic at all. What is dramatic about giving one man one vote? What is dramatic about putting an end to gerrymandering, and giving jobs to people according to their need? But all these things are dramatic in Northern Ireland. Yet not one step has been taken by Northern Ireland to implement such reforms.
I realise that the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland is accepted by the Government Front Bench here as one of the more liberal Prime Ministers we have had in Northern Ireland. I suppose that he is accepted as the best of a bad lot—"Don't shoot the pianist, he's doing his best." At the same time, the British Government have the right to insist on reforms in Northern Ireland. They can tighten the pursestrings, and say, "You will get no more money to be spent to your own political advantage in a given area. If we give any financial resources, they will have to be spent in Strabane, Newry and all the other areas where the people are living in deplorable conditions, and where men have never known what it is to have a job in their own home town."
Those made unemployed in Belfast are in a far better position than they would have been three years ago, because since then this British Government have given us the Redundancy Payments Act, earnings-related supplementary benefit, and the like, but these advantages do not apply to people in Strabane and Newry: they cannot have any earnings-related supplementary benefit because, due to the policies of the Unionist Party, they have not had any earnings for the last 10 years.
I must impress on the Home Secretary the urgency of the situation. Speaking in Trafalgar Square a few months ago, I said that where we had an exploited and oppressed people, denied houses and jobs because of their religion or because they were not supporters of the Unionist Party, and they reached such a stage of frustration that they found that there was nothing to be gained constitutionaly, who could blame them if they themselves tried to do something to rectify their own
1672
position. I was roundly condemned by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), who sent letters to every hon. Member of this House but, in a cowardly manner, refused to meet me in public debate in Northern Ireland on the subject. He refused to meet me in public debate and I said that I would debate with him in any public hall.
Mr. Stratton Mills: The hon. Member is keeping to his usual standards of accuracy. I was not invited to debate with him in Northern Ireland, although I would be glad to do so. What I would do is to debate with him in this House on that speech. If he would sit down, we could get on with it.
Mr. Fitt: When people feel that there can be no redress of their wrongs in a constitutional way by drawing attention to the existing situation, they would be quite entitled and it would be morally valid for them to do something to rectify their position. I said this at the conference in Scarborough and I listened to Anthony Lester speaking on the Race Relations Act. He spoke of the population in America and said that he did not want the same situation here with such riots as there have been in Chicago and other areas. Those people are entitled to take steps to rectify their grievances. I predicted what would happen in Northern Ireland. I did not incite people to violence—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh !"]—but at this moment this is happening. Only last week in the town of Dungannon—
Mr. Stratton Mills Mr. Stratton Mills rose—
Mr. Fitt: No, sit down.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Fitt.
Mr. Fitt: Only last week in Dungannon 15 housing allocations were made by the local authority yet people whose names had been on the waiting list for years were denied.
Mr. Stratton Mills: On a point of order. This important debate on Northern Ireland is taking only something like an hour and ten minutes. Is there nothing you can do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to prevent the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) from hogging all the time and keeping out other hon. Members?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has been speaking for a long time. I am sure that all hon. Members will bear in mind that there is very little time left for this debate. Mr. Fitt.
Mr. Fitt: The Tories from Northern Ireland have been speaking in debates here for the last 40 years. I have an opportunity to speak now, and I shall certainly take that opportunity.[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate will be more useful and more effective if it is heard in silence. Mr. Fitt.
Mr. Fitt: The Tories representing Northern Ireland spoke a great deal, and voted a great deal, from 1964 to 1966. I am taking the opportunity to point out what happened in those years. I want to give the hon. Member for Belfast, North a chance. I know that he is in a state of nervous frustration at the moment, but I want to give him a chance to reply. Hon. Members will listen carefully to his remarks, which I am sure will be completely unacceptable to most hon. Members.
To the Home Secretary I say that many people in Northern Ireland are looking to the British Government to impress on the Northern Ireland Government the necessity for bringing about reforms in Northern Ireland to ensure that we are all treated as British subjects. That is all we ask. We do not ask for more. I believe the British Government have it in their power to do this. I realise that they listen to the pleas and stories from Captain O'Neill, the allegedly liberal Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, but I tell the Government Front Bench, and every hon. Member on this side of the House, that the present Prime Minister of Northern Ireland is getting away with a massive confidence trick. He comes to the Prime Minister here and says, "I would like to introduce reforms but, I am sorry, I have a crowd of backwoodsmen behind me and they prevent me from doing so. Give me another six months and I will do it" and then he says, "Give me another six months"—and another six months. As leader of the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, he hopes that the British Labour Party will be defeated at the next election
1674
and then it will be quite unnecessary for him to introduce reforms.
If, unfortunately, this Administration were defeated—I certainly hope it will not be—the people in Northern Ireland who at present are asking in a constitutional way for reforms, would say, "We tried that method." People told me before I came to this House, "What is the use of going there and talking to a lot of Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen? They do not understand." I impressed on them that I am a Socialist and my Socialism knows no national barrier. I am as ardent as, perhaps more ardent than, any who sit on this side of the House.
I know that the British Labour Government would listen to pleas, made not only by me, but by many Socialists in Northern Ireland, urging the necessity to bring about those reforms before the lifetime of this Government expires. If that does not happen I predict that there will be trouble. I hope that I am wrong because I do not want to see trouble in Northern Ireland. When I predicted that it would happen, the Northern Ireland Prime Minister said that I was going out of my way to advocate the bomb, the bullet and violence. As a pacifist, I do not want to see violence, but I do not want to see the people trampled under by the jackboot Unionist Party.
Mr. Stratton Mills Mr. Stratton Mills rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Belfast, West has not given way. Mr. Fitt.
Mr. Fitt: I wish to say how necessary it is that the British Government, even with all the problems they have in Vietnam, Rhodesia and the rest, should pay particular attention to the problem of Northern Ireland. I do not think that is asking too much. As a Socialist in a Socialist Administration I hope that in the very near future steps will be taken to remedy the existing situation in Northern Ireland.
11.58 a.m.
Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: I had hoped that today we would have a constructive debate on the serious economic problems of Northern Ireland. This, unfortunately, has not transpired. I am bound to say at this juncture that the arrangement of business for today has

1675
proved unsatisfactory. I cast no blame or aspersion in any direction, although something must be said about the length of the speech by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). On the other hand, I am sure that the Home Secretary will take a reasonable view of this matter and that the Government will come to the conclusion that this was not a reasonable day on which to hold a debate on Northern Ireland.
Unfortunately, many economic problems of Northern Ireland have not received the airing which they should have and I shall have to conclude my speech shortly in order to allow the Home Secretary time to take part. It is a matter of extreme regret that very little of a constructive nature on economic affairs was said by the hon. Member for Belfast, West. We should not have been surprised. The House will know that over the summer last year we had some trouble with what have been called Protestant extremists in Northern Ireland.
They were condemned in this House, and rightly condemned, for what they did. I was among those who condemned them, but I am in some doubt as to whether they have done so much more harm to good community relations in Northern Ireland than has the hon. Member for Belfast, West.[Interruption.] That is not irresponsible. There is no need to look beyond the terminological inexactitudes he employs in this House over and over again. There is no need to look beyond the speech he made in Trafalgar Square, which has been quoted in this House. He has been unable to deny it, despite his wriggling and writhing. There is no other interpretation of it. He called in aid the Belfast Telegraph and I do also, because that newspaper came to the same conclusion, that there is no possible explanation but that the speech must have been interpreted by many as a call to violence, an incitement.
Mr. John Ryan: I shared the platform with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) in Trafalgar Square that day. I can state categorically that at no time did my hon. Friend make any plea for violence. He predicted violence if the normal constitutional paths were denied to the majority in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: That is not my interpretation of the hon. Gentleman's speech, nor is it the interpretation put upon the speech by the Belfast Telegraph, which wrote a perfectly responsible report.[HoN. MEMBERS: "He was there."] That may be, but the hon. Gentleman's recollection may be faulty. However, let me for the purposes of this argument accept the evidence, which I am sure was given in good faith, of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Ryan). My case does not rest upon that alone. Although it may have passed unnoticed by some people at the time, the hon. Member for Belfast, West has said exactly the same thing before. He said it in a public speech in Strabane. Perhaps the hon. Member for Uxbridge was present on that occasion.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West said it even more effectively from the point of view of my argument when he spoke in Camden Town Hall. He knows, as I know, what Sinn Fein means in Northern Ireland. He knows that it is the political arm of the I.R.A., a body which caused no fewer than six deaths among the security forces in a recent campaign, millions of £s of damage, and injury to the person in many cases. The hon. Gentleman knows that. I know it. This is the report of the Camden Town Hall meeting:
"Mr. Fitt told the delegates that although he had always opposed the policy of the Sinn Fein, the policies of force, he was having second thoughts and was now wondering if this was the answer."
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Fitt: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I intend to answer this. Prior to my election to this House, Sinn Fein had opposed candidates who had sought election on the abstention ticket. Sinn Fein did not want to recognise the authority of this House. Sinn Fein said, "What is the use of going to England? They do not understand. They will do nothing about it." I then said, in many public speeches up and down the country, that I had sufficient faith in British Socialists—
Mr. Chichester-Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I be allowed to resume my speech?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Chichester-Clark.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: May I resume my speech?
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. I intervened because I thought that the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) was addressing me on a point of order. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is making a very long intervention.
Mr. Fitt: I will make it very, very—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made a very long speech. I hope that he will end his intervention.
Mr. Fitt: I have been attacked, and I think that it is most unfortunate. Sinn Fein, the extreme Republican wing, asked, "What is the use of going to Westminster?" I impressed upon the electorate and upon those people that I believed in constitutional methods. Sinn Fein is now saying, "We told you so. Nothing has been done".
Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Member could, I suppose, wander on for ever and ever, but he will not produce and has not produced any satisfactory answer to what he said in this speech. The truth of the matter is that the hon. Gentleman is as irresponsible a public representative as has ever been elected to this House. This is beginning to be realised very widely indeed.
I want now, in the very brief time available to me, to come to some of the things the hon. Gentleman said. He spoke about the unemployment situation in Londonderry City. He spoke about the unemployment situation generally west of the Bann and said that this was an area which had been starved by the Unionists. No one knows better than the hon. Gentleman how untrue that is, because he knows full well that even in recent times—in recent weeks—considerable extra inducements have been offered by the Ministry of Commerce over there, no doubt with the sanction of the British Government, to any industrialist who is prepared to go over. Very generous terms indeed were offered to the great Michelin firm. This is well known. It has been said in public. A letter has appeared from the Ministry of Commerce to the Leader of the Opposition in Northern Ireland saving this. If the hon. Gentleman disbelieves this, he is
1678
at liberty to consult this firm or any others which have put out scouts in to these areas. I could go on. Indeed, currently, a very large international chemical firm is interested in this area. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that in the area which I have the honour to represent there is the largest industrial complex probably in the whole of Europe. This has been put there at great cost in terms of energy and—
Mr. Fitt: It is not in that city.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: It is just outside. I know the area better than the hon. Gentleman does. Furthermore, advance factories have been erected there. They are only waiting for tenants. There is a Government training scheme on which millions of £s have been spent. The hon. Gentleman knows all that. The same is true in the Strabane area and particularly in Enniskillen. My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Lord Hamilton) knows this full well. I have the facts here. Unfortunately, there is not time to state them. I will show them to the hon. Gentleman.[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As perhaps must be expected, this has been a very hard-hitting debate. I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will give consideration to listening to the argument.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: Even if the hon. Gentleman had not joined his voice with mine on previous occasions and asked for the continued operation of the Joint Anti-Submarine School at Londonderry, which employs between 600 and 700 men, I think that he could at least have asked for a postponement of its closure. Why has he not done so? Why has he not come out in public and supported me? Could it be because he is a Republican and not a Socialist at all? It is a very serious matter. Perhaps he will think that over. Maybe he was convinced on the merits of the Government's case. If so, let him say so, and let him say it in Northern Ireland. He had better think a little harder about that one.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now support me in some of the other things which I had hoped that I would be able to deal with in a good deal more detail and which I had hoped to address ser-

1679
iously to the Home Secretary. As we are speaking of the North West and of Londonderry City in particular, I refer to the very old established shirt industry there. The hon. Gentleman mentioned it. He must have heard of the difficulties which are being experienced there in an industry which even in that region employs 5,000 people. This is a very considerable number in an area which has the highest unemployment rate in the United Kingdom. The industry is experiencing difficulties from the import of Portuguese shirts. The manufacturers there realise, as I do, that under the E.F.T.A. Agreement we have our obligations. It seems, at any rate to me, from a first look at the E.F.T.A. Agreement, that at least under Article 20 there is some chance that some kind of restriction—I am no protectionist —could, if thought desirable, be applied where there is an instance of high unemployment in a sector of an industry or in a particular region. This would appear to be the case. I know that representations are to be made to the Board of Trade in the near future. It will be for the Home Secretary to decide whether he can put his weight behind those representations.
I had hoped to raise with the Home Secretary the question of the increase in air fares to Belfast. The hon. Member for Belfast, West and I may share common ground here. This is a very considerable burden for an area which is physically detached from the rest of the United Kingdom. I say this in the knowledge that I am, I regret to say, representing these facts to a Government who must be said to be hostile to alternative services which have from time to time tried to start up in the last few years. I should like the Home Secretary closely to study this question.
I had also hoped to question the Home Secretary on the question of the Anglo-Eire Trade Agreement. I gave some warning on aspects of this about two years ago from this Box. The Home Secretary knows the effect that the Agreement has had on the meat trade in Northern Ireland, on the new meat plants there, and on the United Kingdom market as a whole. I hope that he will be able this afternoon to tell us something about what has happened at recent meetings between Mr. Blaney and the Minister of Agriculture in Her Majesty's Government.
1680
I also wanted to raise with the Home Secretary in particular questions relating to the high cost of cereals imported into Northern Ireland. I shall have to write a letter to the right hon. Gentleman on that matter. It is a problem which could well be—no matter which side of the argument one is on, one must face the facts—exacerbated by our entry into the E.E.C. It is a problem which we should be considering now.
I also wanted to mention certain problems connected with the pig industry, but I must not continue any longer and take up any more of the Home Secretary's time. I will write him a letter on the points which I have not been able to cover owing to the shortage of time.
A good deal has been said by the hon. Member for Belfast, West and by other hon. Members at other times about community relations in Northern Ireland and the desire to improve them. That desire is there. The improvement has been taking place. It will take place that much faster if it is realised that tensions of generations and scars of history take a long time to heal. People in public life can do a great deal by drawing attention to those things which unite a community, not just those which divide it, as so constantly the hon. Gentleman does.
Much has been done to smooth away the tensions, but, of course, there are still certain deep-seated fears in the community, as in any other. Mainly—the hon. Gentleman is on record himself as saying this on occasion—these fears arise from such problems as shortages of jobs and of houses. These are the main fears, and we in this House can contribute a great deal more than we have done if we face the fact that the tensions and difficulties which arise from history are exacerbated by social and economic conditions still apparent in Northern Ireland today. We can do something, despite what may have been said in the House at times about our having no control over what goes on in Northern Ireland. We have control to this extent, that we can encourage and help. I have not been able to go into the question of subsidisation but I shall be happy to answer the hon. Gentleman about that any time he wants.
Mr. Fitt: What about reform of the electoral system?
Mr. Chichester-Clark: I shall not let the hon. Gentleman intervene again. He has talked enough. He knows perfectly well that reforms are taking place in the electoral system. That is another example of the hon. Gentleman failing to rise to appeals to him to be fair minded in these matters.
The House can do a great deal to encourage and help the Northern Ireland Government on its enlightened path of bringing prosperity not just to any one section of the community but to the whole of Northern Ireland, that prosperity which the people of Northern Ireland so rightly deserve.
12.11 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) for sitting down at the time at which I suggested it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to reply. No one can pretend that we have had a full and exhaustive debate on this subject, though I must say that no representations were made from the other side beforehand that this was not an appropriate time for it. However, I note the comments which have been made about that.
Mr. Stanley Orme: A Supply Day?
Mr. Jenkins: Other points of that kind have been noted. It is traditional, when Northern Ireland is debated, for the Home Secretary to give some sort of review of the economic as well as other considerations. In trying to do this, I feel somewhat in the position of someone endeavouring to deliver a lecture on the battlefield, but I can assure the trenches on both sides that one advantage of the time is that the exigencies of the moment mean that it must necessarily be a very short lecture.
At the end of my speech, I shall say a word about certain broader issues. For the moment, I direct attention to economic affairs. The economy of Northern Ireland suffers in acute form from some of the problems which face some of the regions here in Britain. The pattern of existing industries has been steadily outdated. Unemployment is consistently at too high a level, and a complete restructuring of the economy of Northern Ire-
1682
land became necessary some time ago, the need being not only for more jobs and more factories, but also for a review of the essential infrastructure on which a stable and prosperous society has to be built—new housing and new towns, with all the environmental services going with them, new transport services both inland and for the sea and air journey to Great Britain—I note what was said about that—new skills for the working population requiring a massive effort of retraining and education.
There are some who would say that these things are of small importance compared with the divisions in society in Northern Ireland. In my view, while achieving a higher level of prosperity and welfare will not of itself heal these divisions, it will be more difficult to heal them without such a high level of prosperity and welfare, and, moreover, continuance of the economic handicaps can only serve to perpetuate and worsen the divisions.
What is being done? Two and a half years ago, the Northern Ireland Government commissioned the Wilson Report on economic development, and they said that they accepted it as their programme up to 1970. The economy of Northern Ireland, however, is part of a larger whole, and the general level of economic activity must depend on that ruling throughout the United Kingdom and on the broad conditions governing that level. Inevitably, the measures which we had to take in July 1966 have had their effect in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, and Northern Ireland, as we all know, is vulnerable, like some other regions, in times of general economic difficulty. Northern Ireland has not gone unscathed. None the less, considerable efforts have been made by the United Kingdom Government to give economic assistance, by a Labour Government here in the United Kingdom—
Mr. Chichester-Clark: And by the Government in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Jenkins: By a Labour Government here and by a Unionist Government, as I understand it, in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: And the Conservative Government here.
Mr. Jenkins: And by a Conservative Government, no doubt, previously.

1683
Until the summer of last year, progress had been considerable, and, in the two and a half years up to June 1966, a total of 14,000 new jobs had been created in manufacturing industry alone. The level of unemployment, while still high by United Kingdom standards, was coming well down on that of previous years. It is rising again to unhealthy levels now. It was 7·5 per cent. for September, and 7·4 per cent. for mid-October, which is a slight improvement. However, without wishing to enter into detailed controversy about the position in the City and County of 'Derry, I recognise that in certain parts the position is very much worse than is indicated by an overall figure of 7·5 or 7·4 per cent. This is something which we cannot ignore.
At the same time, however, the total which will be spent on attracting new industry to Northern Ireland in the current year will be £31 million as against £24·7 million last year, which is an important factor. This money goes to Government-built factories, capital assistance grants of up to 50 per cent., for projects offering a reasonable return in unemployment terms, and grants towards initial operating costs. There is a fuel subsidy to offset higher transport costs. Grants are generally available on both plant and buildings, and industrial buildings also enjoy substantial derating. In addition, there is a large Government-sponsored training programme, and there is the additional premium for employment in manufacturing industries at the same rate as the regional employment premium in our development areas. Apart from assistance provided through the employment premium, there is close co-operation with us in Great Britain in steering industry to Northern Ireland, which is given no less priority than we attach to our own development areas. Likewise, Government contracts are awarded to firms in Northern Ireland on the same preferential basis as to firms in our own development areas. Government measures designed to alleviate problems of unemployment throughout the United Kingdom take particular account of Northern Ireland's problems, and there is very close co-ordination on regional planning policy in Britain with that being pursued in Northern Ireland.
1684
As a result, despite the short-term current difficulties, which are certainly real, considerable progress is being made to put the economy of Northern Ireland on a more satisfactory long-term basis. This is coming by the growing diversification of its industrial base, which has diminished emphasis on the traditional industries of agriculture, linen and shipbuilding, and the growth of new industries with good prospects for development such as motor components, electronics, man-made fibres and the like have been encouraging developments.
The traditional activities will undoubtedly have a major part to play. Agriculture remains the largest single sector of the Province's economy. There is need for a policy of amalgamation, for nearly half the farm holdings in Northern Ireland are too small to be regarded as full-time undertakings. The Agriculture Act of this year provides a scheme for 50 per cent. grants towards such amalgamations, and, in addition, the 1967 Annual Review has, in my view, been of considerable benefit to Northern Ireland agriculture in the increases in guaranteed prices for fat cattle and sheep and for milk and in a wide range of subsidies.
I mentioned the traditional industries of Northern Ireland. Shipbuilding is important to Belfast and the province as a whole. Not only does it employ a large labour force, but the availability of the work at the yards has repercussions on other industries. The industry there consists almost entirely of a single firm, Harland and Wolff, which has undergone thorough internal organisation. It has received a large loan from the Northern Ireland Government, conditional on reorganisation, and now looks forward for several years ahead to a steady programme of work. The recent Order for two super-tankers, the largest ever built in this country, was most encouraging.
The House will also have been glad to hear that the Ship Building Industry Board, which we set up to aid the development of the industry, has agreed to back the construction of a very large building dock at a cost of £8 to £10 million, of extended yard capacity to build tankers of 300,000 tons and more. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology has performed a very real

1685
service for Northern Ireland by the work he has been able to do there.
Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: We are grateful, but I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the leader in the Business News section of The Times today, which points out that building tankers does not represent work for all the faculties in the yard. We need more work through British shipowners building container vessels and other such vessels in British yards.
Mr. Jenkins: I remember that when I was Minister of Aviation the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) always asked for more. It is worth-while to point out what has been done by the British Government, which is very considerable.
There is also the other great Belfast firm, Short Brothers and Harland, which the hon. Gentleman talks about a good deal and knows well. The House knows, from the statements made before the Recess by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, that the firm is going through a very difficult phase, and requires considerable financial assistance from the Government. Shorts are implementing the recommendations of the detailed report on its aircraft division by a firm of management consultants and when this is complete, together with financial reconstruction, the aircraft division and the company as a whole, will we all hope, start into the future on a viable commercial footing. It is going ahead with the production of wings for the F28 and F228 and has entered into a contract with Rolls-Royce to design and produce pods for the RB 203 engine, and the British Government has made it possible for the Skyvan to continue in production.
I said earlier that a sustained attack on the economic difficulties of the region can make it much easier to solve the special social and political problems of Northern Ireland. People employed in a vigorous modern economy with a technological base which demands high management and other skills are less likely to be obsessed by old quarrels. There have been many criticisms of the administration of Northern Ireland. The general feeling of concern which underlies many, although not all, of those criticisms is something which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I share but we cannot simply
1686
put aside the constitution of Northern Ireland or ignore the historical facts which underlie the present position and present policy.
The Prime Minister told the House last April that he did not think that a Royal Commission to inquire into the administration of Northern Ireland was the answer. Under the Northern Ireland constitution, certain powers and responsibilties are vested in the Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland. Successive Governments here have refused to take steps which would inevitably cut away not only the authority of the Northern Ireland Government but also the constitution of the province. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend and I have not concealed from the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, with whom we have had continuing discussions, the concern felt here. I must add that we have not concealed on occasion our admiration for the courageous stand Captain O'Neill has taken on certain issues and at certain times.
The process of bringing about some rapprochement between Northern Ireland and the Republic is bound to be accompanied by mistrust and suspicion in the minds of many people on both sides. But a start has been made, and no one should underrate this easing of relations as a contribution to the essential problem of easing community relations in Northern Ireland itself. I believe that nearly everybody in the House—certainly everybody on this side, but also many hon. Members opposite—wants to see rapid progress in that direction. After all, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. That is its raison d'être as an entity. It exists because of its desire to be part of the United Kingdom, but that unity can have little meaning unless we work towards common economic and social standards and common standards in political tolerance and non-discrimination on both sides of the Irish Sea.
There is room for argument—and we have heard a good deal this morning—about the pace which is practicable or desirable. But we must at least be satisfied about the direction. Provided we can be so satisfied, there is a great deal to be said for not trying to settle the affairs of Northern Ireland too directly from London.

1687
Before this Government was formed, I spent a good deal of my time studying and trying to write about 19th-century and early 20th-century history. No one can undertake detailed studies of that period of British history, as many other hon. Members have, without being left with the conviction that despite the many attributes of the English a peculiar talent for solving the problems of Ireland is not among them. I believe that I might carry my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) with me in that statement. I think that it may be true of the North as well as the South.
Few issues in the past have shown a greater capacity to divert and dissipate the reforming energy of left-wing British Governments than deep embroilment in Irish affairs. But all that is subordinate to the desire—indeed, determination—that most of us have to see the making of real economic, social and political progress. There are at present reasonable grounds for hope, and I trust that they will not be disappointed.
Mr. Ben Whitaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree that discrimination on religious grounds is as abhorrent as that on racial grounds, which my right hon. Friend is in the forefront in condemning? Will he consider including it in forthcoming legislation?
Mr. Jenkins: It would raise not the issue of whether religious discrimination is as abhorrent as racial discrimination, on which I agree with the proposition put forward by my hon. Friend, but the question whether one was to apply to Northern Ireland legislation that would normally be domestic to Great Britain. While different views can be held against this, it would be to put a quite different interpretation on the constitution of 1920 than hitherto.
12.28 p.m.
Mr. Stratton Mills: In the few remaining minutes, I welcome the Home Secretary to his first debate on Northern Ireland and would like to say, as one who admired his book on Dilke, how much we enjoyed the delicacy of his words on the influence of Englishmen and those of the Parnellite group who encouraged Englishmen to take an interest in affairs in Ireland as a whole.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) suggested that the movement
1688
towards better relations in Northern Ireland was phoney. I wish to refer to the speech made by Mr. Robert Thompson, President of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, last 23rd May, who paid tribute to Captain O'Neill for his stand against the forces of reaction, and to a speech by Mr. Herbert Moffatt, a respected trade unionist, at the annual conference of the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers, who said:
"There is a spirit of co-operation abroad today among ordinary folk in Northern Ireland. It is unfortunate, and I hate to say it, that when some Labour M.P.s come to visit us, rather than cement the friendly relations between our people we find the opposite to be the case."
I would also refer to remarks made by the Reverend J. McGarvey, parish priest of St. Mary's, Limavady, who said to Captain O'Neill on his visit to St. Mary's school there:
"Your visit is evidence of your genuine desire to sponsor good relations throughout the country."
There are many other quotations that I could give.[Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member's remarks from a seated position—

RATING AND VALUATION (DUNDEE)
12.30 p.m.
Mr. Peter Doig: I am very grateful for the opportunity of calling attention to an anomaly which has arisen in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson).
Four of my constituents have recently discovered that included in the gross annual value of their house is a figure for garden sheds which they do not possess and have never possessed. They did not discover this during the appeal period in the year of revaluation, 1966. This is understandable. They received a pink form which gives them the gross annual value and rateable value, but it does not include extras such as garages, central heating or garden sheds. Therefore, they had no reason to suspect that as they had never possessed a garden shed they would have one included in their gross annual value.
The anomaly was accidentally discovered during gossip with their neighbours when they found that they had a

1689
higher assessment than their neighbours for the same type of house. They went to the city assessor, who informed them that this was because they had a garden shed. They pointed out that they did not have a garden shed.
The assessor told me that nothing could be done about this. I also approached the town clerk, and he in turn said that nothing could be done about it. The assessor advised these people of their right to appeal in other than a revaluation year to the Valuation Appeal Committee. A letter that he sent to one of them said:
"With reference to recent correspondence on this matter I have decided, after consideration, that I am prevented by law from offering any reduction in assessment for the nonexistence of a garden shed at this address. The entry in the valuation roll as originally notified to you must, therefore, stand."
He goes on to say that they have a right of appeal, and ends:
"I am bound to state, however, that by virtue of the provisions of Section 9(2) of the 1956 Act your appeal, in my opinion, would be considered as incompetent."
It seems to me a strange thing that one party to the appeal should be allowed, as a so-called expert, to intimidate the other party into not appealing by saying that on the basis of his expert knowledge it would be ruled as incompetent. It is wrong that he should send such a letter.
In spite of the letter I advised my constituents to appeal. They agreed to do so provided that I would represent them before the Appeal Committee. I thought that this was reasonable because the letter which they received from the assessor said in relation to Valuation Appeal Committees:
"At the hearing you may appear in person or be represented by counsel or solicitor or, with the leave of the Committee, by any other person."
As these people have no great knowledge of procedure of this kind—many of them are even frightened of it—they agreed to appeal only on condition that I would represent them.
So I went to the Valuation Appeal Committee. I was astonished to find that the Chairman of the Committee stated that if the appeal related to a question of law or fact, only a solicitor could act for these people. This would appear to suggest that if I were merely
1690
expressing an opinion the Committee would listen to me but if that I were expressing a fact it would not listen to me. This seems to me to be a very strange state of affairs.
I was further surprised to find that in the excerpt from the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, that was sent to these people it was stated:
"Provided that notwithstanding the provisions of sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (b) of this subsection the assessor shall, in making up a roll for any year other than a year of revaluation, give effect to … any alteration in the value of any land and heritages which is due to a material change of circumstances."
It seems to me that on the basis of that provision in Section 9 there is a case for altering this. It seemed very strange—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. Is the hon. Gentleman asking that there should be new legislation to do this? If he is, he is out of order on the Adjournment.
Mr. Doig: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am leading up to Ministerial responsibility in this matter. It is necessary to give the background to enable hon. Members to understand what this is about. I am merely giving the background before I come to the point of Ministerial responsibility. I hope that you will bear with me and allow me to do this. I can assure you that it is necessary to do this so that even the Minister of State can understand what this is about.
I should like to have the opinion of the Minister of State when he replies on whether or not a Committee should refuse to hear someone. It must be obvious that no sane person is ever going to appeal in a case of this kind where the solicitor's fees will undoubtedly be greater than any possible saving that he could achieve in the four years between revaluations. People would be off their heads if they engaged solicitors in cases like this where they would be bound to lose more than they could possibly save. I should like to have the opinion of the Minister of State on this state of affairs.
Section 9 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, suggests that if a shed is removed the valuation can be decreased. On the other hand, if there is no shed there in the first place, the authorities cannot remove it, and if they cannot remove it there is no material change of

1691
circumstances and, therefore, the gross annual value cannot be reduced.
Having been refused permission to put the case before the Valuation Appeal Committee and the appeal having been thrown out, it struck me that this was a tailor-made case for the Parliamentary Commissioner. I can think of no more appropriate case for him to deal with than this. Therefore, I wrote to the Parliamentary Commissioner and asked him to investigate the case and do anything he could in the matter. I received a reply which said that it was outside his jurisdiction because it dealt with a local authority matter. It would seem to me that it should be brought within his jurisdiction.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but once again he is approaching the need for new legislation, and he cannot do that and remain in order on the Adjournment.
Mr. Doig: I realise that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is why I merely said it and left it.
Next, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland and put all the facts to him. I received a reply from my noble Friend Lord Hughes, the Joint Under-Secretary of State, on 7th September. My noble Friend wrote:
"Thank you for your letter … to the Secretary of State about two of your constituents who have been assessed for rating of garden sheds which they do not have."
He then pointed out that in his opinion the assessor was right in saying that he could not change it, etc., and continued:
"The system unfortunately does not make allowance for the automatic correction of an anomaly of the kind which appears to have arisen, quite accidentally, in Dundee. That position is governed by the terms of the 1956 Act itself, there is no action open to the Secretary of State to take on any individual case or group of cases."
I draw particular attention to that phrase because of what happened afterwards:
"… There is no action open to the Secretary of State to take an any individual case or group of cases."
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The more powerful the hon. Gentleman's arguments, the more I am convinced that he is really asking for new legislation. He cannot do so and I cannot allow him to go on indefinitely.
Mr. Doig: I am trying to point out that while the Secretary of State says in this letter one thing, in another he says something different. How I am to lead up to the second letter without referring to the first, I do not know. The second letter would be Greek to the House if I could not refer to the first.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is merely presenting a case that different views have been presented at different times by the Secretary of State, then he is in order.
Mr. Doig: I read that phrase from the first letter twice so that it would be firmly understood, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It so happens that I have a number of old Acts of Parliament lying about my House. One of my sons was reading through these one day and discovered an Act referring to this very problem—the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1963, Section 20 of which says:
"Where it is shown to the satisfaction of a rating authority that any amount has been paid to them in respect of rates by reason of an error of fact, and the amount is not recoverable apart from this section, the authority shall repay the amount to the person from whom they received it or to any other person appearing to them to be entitled to that person's interests:
Provided that no repayment under this subsection shall be made after the end of the sixth year after that in respect of which the amount was paid, unless application therefore was before that time."
That, I submit, completely contradicts the letter which Lord Hughes sent stating that the Secretary of State had no power to do anything about this matter.
I drew Section 20 of the 1963 Act to Lord Hughes' attention and subsequently he agreed that it covered the very point I had made. It seems strange to me—and this is where the Ministerial criticism comes in—that the Secretary of State should convey to me in one letter that no action was open to him and in a subsequent letter that the point was now covered. It seems strange that no one in St. Andrew's House seemed to know about Section 20 of the 1963 Act. It is a strange omission.
On 11th October, I received a second letter from Lord Hughes in which he said:
"I enclose a copy of the letter which I have cent today to Lord Provost Mackenzie about the assessment of non-existent garden sheds. As you will see I have stated that if the Town Council decided there has been an error of fact they have an obligation to make refunds."

1693
I have seen the letter which Lord Hughes sent to the Lord Provost. As he said in his letter to me, it points out to the local authority that, under Section 20 of the 1963 Act, it has a duty to repay this money if there is an error of fact. The error of fact, although the Valuation Appeal Committee did not hear me, was admitted to the Committee by the Assessor.
I have approached the Lord Provost about the matter and have asked him to carry through these repayments and he has sent me the following letter:
"I thank you for your letter of 14th October.
In view of the information, which has now come to hand, about the terms of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1963, it is my intention to discuss the matter of rating of non-existent garden sheds in the City, with the Treasurer at an early date.
After I have had all opportunity of doing this, I have no doubt an item will be included on the agenda of the appropriate Committee, so that the matter may be given attention.
When a decision has been obtained, I shall write you again."
Powers are given to the Secretary of State under the 1956 Act to make orders. I ask my right hon. Friend to take whatever action is possible within his jurisdiction to rectify the flaws highlighted by these cases. The City Assessor of Dundee has agreed that these cases are probably duplicated in every constituency in the country. This is a serious matter that requires looking into by the Secretary of State and I urge him to take whatever steps are within his power to rectify the position.
12.47 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I suspect that the indignation caused to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) by this case is the reason why he has been a little ungenerous to my noble Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who was an excellent Lord Provost of Dundee and is extremely interested in this matter and concerned about it.
Mr. Doig: I am sorry if I misled the House on this. I am in fact grateful to my noble Friend for the speedy way in which he dealt with this matter after I drew his attention to the 1963 Act.
Dr. Mabon: It seems that now there is a slight change in emphasis. But my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, by
1694
implication, my noble Friend and myself were being criticised for the way in which this matter was handled and for the apparent contradiction between the letter sent by Lord Hughes on 7th September and that sent on 11th October. But perhaps I misunderstood my hon. Friend. I thought, however, that he had suggested that Ministers had changed their minds and this was not so.
It was perhaps almost galling to me to hear my hon. Friend complain of the operation of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, because many of the criticisms that he made were in fact uttered by us in Opposition when the Act was going through 12 years ago. We are precluded by the Act from taking specific action in individual cases or groups of cases like this.
My hon. Friend referred to the 1963 Act, pointing out that the local authority has some discretion in this matter, and that is true. No doubt his speech will be read with interest. The Finance Committee of Dundee Corporation is to decide whether or not to exercise its discretion in this connection. It can decide whether or not there has been an error which should be rectified by the rating authority, Dundee Corporation.
I do not know how many non-existent garden sheds there are in Scotland that are being rated by assessors. We are very concerned about the way in which the valuation system is working. We have seen a number of anomalies and defects arising from the 1966 re-valuation. My hon. Friend takes great interest in rating problems and, as a former Treasurer of Dundee, knows that we are engaged on a review of valuation procedures. But this would involve legislation and therefore I shall not touch on that aspect now.
We are taking into account a number of points, and the 20 cases of non-existent garden sheds that we know of have been drawn to the assessor's attention, even though the garden hut element in the valuation is as small in some eases as only £1. Still, it is a matter of principle and that is always more important to a Scotsman than £1.
The matter was raised by my hon. Friend and his right hon. friend and neighbour, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, and we have been able to go into the matter very thoroughly. I will recite the fact that

1695
the assessor was founding on Section 9 (1, b) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, and that, when the city assessor referred to Section 9 (2, a) of the 1956 Act, namely, that appeals are not competent in inter-revaluation years unless there has been a material change since revaluation, he was reciting the law as it stands.
I will not go into the reasons why the Dundee Revaluation Committee rejected the appeals of the three constituents. That is a matter for them. The operation of these appeals committees cannot be subject to a direction by the Secretary of State. The whole system yes, but not the specific operations of the system at the moment of their coming into being and being a real issue. That would be undesirable. It is something that in statute is firm and can only be changed by a new statute.
The reason, in defence of the present statutory provisions is not without some understanding. In a revaluation year ratepayers have a minimum of about two months between the last date of the issue of valuation notices by the assessor and the last date for lodging appeals in which to check the valuations, which cover pertinents such as garden huts. They can check to see that they are correct in relation to similar properties and, if they have any doubts, they can either approach the assessor informally or lodge a formal appeal. The argument is that if inquiries and complaints were allowed to spill over that 2½ months into subsequent years, it might open the door to other anomalies and difficulties, and comparisons would become less and less reliable as time goes on.
I do not want to be tempted into a defence of the statute or an argument for changing the statute, because I would be out of order. I merely recite the fact that the city assessor, as he sees it, is within his rights in this action as statute presently lays down. We are, however, reviewing this, but in this specific instance the question of any adjustment before the review of the Secretary of State can be translated into reality lies at the hands of the Dundee Corporation. The review will cover various procedural matters, such as the valuation timetable
1696
and information given to ratepayers in valuation notices and arrangements for hearing appeals.
Therefore, some of the points raised this morning will be covered by that, but it might be useful if we had a debate, when the review has finished, so that the Secretary of State can have the benefit of comments from his hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite on the usefulness of the review. It may be that they can suggest other possibilities of reform of the present system, which, alas, will be with us at least for another five years, I would think, and therefore we should get this system working as well as it possibly can. Other topics may be included in the review, depending on the terms of the assessor's reports for this important year of 1966–67 which should be in the Department in the course of November. The review should be concluded by the spring of next year, so I hope that my hon. Friend will remember that it might be useful for us to have such a debate and he may be able to help in arranging it.
I welcome the chance of commenting on this. I am glad that my hon. Friend is discharging any claim that we have been unreasonable in this matter or have not taken action as quickly as we can. We are the prisoners of statute, just like everybody else, and we can only take action where we can.
I cannot comment on what the Finance Committee may do tomorrow. It remains to be seen how it will discharge the matter of discretion. The matter of rents again is completely at the hands of Dundee Corporation, who are responsible to the Secretary of State for the tariff of rents. I know that in Dundee the position on rents is related to the gross annual value and hence the rating on these nonexistent garden sheds in turn reflects itself in the rent, but that is a matter which is within the discretion of the Dundee Corporation. It has always been a well-governed city and I am sure that the persons on behalf of whom my hon. Friend has been speaking will get proper and due consideration at the meeting of the Corporation tomorrow and in subsequent weeks.
The debate having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the Sitting until half-past Two o'clock, pursuant to Order.
Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  Standing Orders (Private Business)
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Eric Fletcher): I beg to move,
  That the Amendments to Standing Orders hereinafter stated in Schedule (A) be made, that the Standing Order hereinafter stated in Schedule (B) be repealed, and that the new Standing Order hereinafter stated in Schedule (C) be made.
  Schedule (A)—Amendments to Standing Orders
  Standing Order 27, line 61, leave out "Land and Natural Resources" and insert "Public Building and Works".
  Standing Order 31, line 6, leave out "Ministry of Transport" and insert "Board of Trade".
  Standing Order 37, line 15, leave out "Land and Natural Resources" and insert "Housing and Local Government".
  Standing Order 3, line 8, leave out "Aviation" and insert "Technology".
  Standing Order 39, line 11, leave out "Ministry of Land and Natural Resources the".
  Standing Order 39, line 28, leave out "Colonial" and insert "Commonwealth".
  Standing Order 46, line 5, leave out "or Ministry of Land and Natural Resources".
  Standing Order 237, line 1, leave out "twelve" and insert "thirteen".
  Standing Order 237, line 5, at end insert "as amended by the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1965".
  Standing Order 238, line 7, leave out "eleven" and insert "twelve".
  Standing Order 247, line 16, leave out "fourteen" and insert "twenty-one".
  Schedule (B) Repeal of Standing Order
  Standing Order 148 (Provision for completion of line).
  Schedule (C)—New Standing Order
  Deposit of map in case of Bill for taking water supply.
  "30A (1) In the case of Bill whereby it is proposed that any water may be taken, collected, or impounded for the purpose of a water supply the Promoters shall, on or before the Twentieth of November, deposit at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and also at the Private Bill Office, an Ordnance map on the scale of not less than one inch to a mile, showing by a distinguishing mark the position of each reservoir, well. conduit, or other work proposed to be authorised by the Bill; and where the proposed source of supply is a river, stream, or lake, showing by a clearly marked line the catchment area or gathering ground from which the waters are derived.
  (2) Where, under the powers of any Bill it is proposed to supply with water any area not
  1698
  previously included within the Promoters' limits of supply, the Promoters shall similarly deposit an Ordnance map on the scale of one inch to a mile showing respectively the existing limits of supply and the area proposed to be added thereto."
  The Amendments in Schedule (A) are largely consequential on recent legislation or changes in departmental responsibility. The repeal in Schedule (B) is an Order that has not been enforced for a number of years and is obsolete. The new Standing Order in Schedule (C) brings our own practice into line with that of another place.
  Question put and agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Police
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he now has to deal with the shortage of policemen in Scotland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): Recruitment standards are being reviewed, research is being conducted into the causes of premature wastage, the use of civilians is being extended and additional expenditure has been authorised on cars and radio sets required for the introduction of new systems of policing that will increase efficiency and make better use of manpower.
    Mr. Taylor: While appreciating this action, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the numbers of police employed in Scotland in the two years until 30th September actually fell, despite an increase in authorised establishments and a staggering increase in crime? In view of the fact that law and order is the Government's first responsibility, when can we expect some action and results?
    Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, for the first time since 1964, we have got over the 10,000 mark in the police forces. To a big extent, the discrepancy arises as a result of increasing establishments in order to emphasise the urgency of the problem. There has been an increase in the police forces over the last nine months.
    Mr. MacArthur: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that for every 37 criminals caught, 63 go undetected, and that the best deterrent to crime is to catch the criminal? Will he, therefore, take urgent action to bring the police forces up to establishment?
    Mr. Buchan: We are taking every action to bring them up to establishment, and, as I have said, we are increasing the establishments. As for the best deterrent being the detection of crime, it is precisely because of that that we are pleased to say that there has been an increase in the detection rate this year.

    Emigration
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the most recent figure of net emigration from Scotland.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): The most recent figures available are those which I gave in a written answer to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce Gardyne) on 26th July[Vol. 751, c. 140.] The estimates for the second six months of the year ending 30th June, 1967 are not yet available.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that emigration normally reaches a peak about 18 months after a period of high unemployment? In view of the large numbers of people out of work at present, is he satisfied that everything possible is being done to stem the drain on Scotland's resources?
    Mr. Ross: Attention has been drawn to this relationship by Lord Clydesmuir in the Stock Exchange Gazette, saying that the high levels of emigration were due to unemployment under hon. Gentlemen opposite. From figures I have seen, the indications are that the net loss by emigration from Scotland during 1966–67 will be no greater and perhaps smaller than the net loss in 1965–66 and will show a very substantial decrease in the numbers who have drifted south.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Has my right hon. Friend any separate information about the emigration of scientists and technologists, since I understand that the trend there is more satisfactory today than it was two or three years ago?
    Mr. Ross: On some of these aspects, the trends are more satisfactory, but I have no figures to substantiate the point which my hon. Friend has made.

    Command Paper No. 2864
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he is satisfied that the objectives laid down in the White Paper, The Scottish Economy 1965–70, a Plan for Expansion, Command Paper No. 2864 are being achieved; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ross: The general strategy of the White Paper remains unchanged, and I am confident that its objectives will be achieved, although this may take longer than originally visualised.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when he met the S.T.U.C. at the end of September, he admitted in particular that investment targets were not being reached? Since the Government obviously have failed in their plans for the growth of industry in Scotland, will he issue fresh targets?
    Mr. Ross: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that public investment targets are being reached and may be surpassed.
    Mr. G. Campbell: Is it still an objective, as set out in the White Paper, that more than half the target for jobs in the six years in question will be in non-manufacturing industry, and is that compatible with the Selective Employment Tax?
    Mr. Ross: I can assure the hon. Gentleman of our desire to see an increase in jobs in non-manufacturing industry, and there are satisfactory indications that they are showing an increase.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Scottish Council for the Development of Industry says in its survey that the prospects for industry in Scotland are extremely good and that development is likely to be very satisfactory in the kind of industry which is required to balance up industry in Scotland?
    Mr. Ross: That is perfectly true. We have been successful in relation to new industry. Taking the years 1965, 1966 and 1967 and comparing them with 1962, 1963 and 1964, we are getting new job

    1701
    potential at almost double the rate. One of the main problems is the continued quick rundown of our older industries.

    Teachers (Special Recruitment Scheme)
    Mr. Youngerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now amend the special recruitment scheme for teachers, so that a widow can have her late husband's pension disregarded when her special recruitment scheme grant is assessed.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): No, Sir.
    Mr. Younger: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a very absurd situation that a widow who enters the special recruitment scheme gets a less favourable grant than a married woman, because the married woman's husband's earnings are not taken into account whereas the widow's late husband's pension is taken into account? Could he amend this regulation to enable more widows to enter teaching?
    Mr. Millan: The provisions for widows' grants were improved about two years ago. I would not accept that they are unfavourably treated. I would say that married women whose husbands are still alive are particularly favourably treated. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman suggests that we ought to change that.

    Law Reform
    Mr. Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what law reform measures he proposes to introduce.
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to forecast in detail the Bills that may be introduced next Session but he will recall announcements that the Government intend to legislate as soon as convenient on corroboration, which is an aspect of the law of evidence, on legitimation, on the succession rights of illegitimate persons and on the setting up of a collecting officer service in Scotland. I hope to make progress with some of these matters.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that that is quite
    1702
    a satisfactory answer, but that the point of my question was that, very often, minor legislation is overlooked, and I do not want that to happen?
    Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Report of the Scottish Law Commission which is being published today, he will get an indication of how matters are proceeding along these lines. I am pleased with this and with the co-operation which I am getting from Scottish hon. Members in all parts of the House when these matters are brought forward.
    Mr. Maclennan: Several of the recommendations of the Halliday Committee on Conveyancing can be implemented without much controversy, and I hope that they will be given the priority which they deserve.
    Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend will know that I have made a separate statement on Halliday in relation to the feudal system. However, there are some parts of that which could be the subject of legislation. We are considering this, and we are in consultation about it.
    Mr. James Davidson: I was going to ask roughly the same question, and whether some reform of the conveyancing system in Scotland was not going to be carried out during the coming Session. I am satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's answer.

    Hill Sheep Farmers
    Mr. Monroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the present level of income of hill sheep farmers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchan: The 1967 Annual Review White Paper recognised the effect of the fall in store prices a year ago on the business of hill sheep farmers, and the Review settlement gave substantial additional assistance to this sector of the industry. Prices for lambs and cast ewes at the sales this autumn have shown a considerable improvement on last year, but until the sales are over it is not possible to make a realistic assessment of the financial returns from the 1967 lamb crop.
    Mr. Monro: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that he is over-estimating when he

    1703
    says that there has been a considerable improvement in prices? There has been only one increase of a few shillings, and they are still much below 1965 and 1964. Will he now take urgent steps to help hill farmers?
    Mr. Buchan: I am aware of the problems facing the hill sheep industry in Scotland. A good deal of confidence has returned as a result of the specific steps that we have taken, such as the increased subsidy to hill sheep and the extension of the Scheme to the uplands. A good deal of confidence has been restored, and some of the indications this autumn show that our measures are beginning to bite.
    Mr. Stodart: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is in no degree complacent about the situation? Is he aware that the prices on the market of lambs today are still less than in 1964?
    Mr. Buchan: I am not complacent. I have been having discussions with a number of people, both with the farmers themselves and, perhaps more important, with people involved in research and technology in this connection.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Monroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to reduce the level of unemployment in Scotland.
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he will adopt to reduce unemployment in Scotland.
    Mr. Ross: The reduction of unemployment has been an objective of all the regional development measures introduced by the present Government. Their success is reflected in the proportionately smaller increase in Scottish unemployment over the past year compared with that for Great Britain as a whole and the underlying trend is now downward. As special further measures to safeguard employment in Scotland this winter, additional public works have been authorised and the National Coal Board has agreed to defer the closure of six pits employing over 2,000 men.
    Mr. Monro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members will be glad to hear the further proposals which
    1704
    have been announced in Scotland today, but will he take steps to suspend the payment of S.E.T. to help the unemployment situation in the service industries?
    Mr. Ross: I think that the hon. Gentleman over-estimates the effect which that will have, and under-estimates the position which existed when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced this measure.
    Mr. MacArthur: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is of little comfort to an unemployed man to be told that unemployment in Scotland has gone up by only 48 per cent? Will the right hon. Gentleman take further note of the S.E.T. proposals made by my hon. Friend because of the larger impact which this tax has in the remote areas which are on the point of laying off men in the service industries, and where there is no alternative manufacturing employment for them?
    Mr. Ross: The whole point of the S.E.T. was to strengthen the economy, and not to put a burden on manufacturing industry. It is on the basis of a prosperous manufacturing industry that the economy will be able to expand, and expand into the various areas mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is it not a misconception to think that we should employ people doing useless work? Is not the real solution to utilise the people being set free by science-based industries, which do not use so much manpower, in new occupations, instead of trying to keep them in industries which do not need them?
    Mr. Ross: I think my right hon. Friend will appreciate that with the modernisation of industry there has been created a further problem in relation to its continued expansion. I am pleased about the rate at which we have been able to expand during the past two and three-quarter years, and indeed in the year before that. I think all the indications are that we will maintain, and if possible increase, this rate of progress. It is this which has changed the whole pattern of Scottish industry and made some of the prophets of gloom look rather silly.
    Mr. Dewar: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is good ground for an encouraging reply in this matter as was underlined by the remarkably optimistic note struck by the Confederation of British Industry's 30th Report on industrial trends for Scotland, published the other day?
    Mr. Ross: It is true that it struck an optimistic note, and indeed this is reflected in the fact that for two months in succession, when measured against the seasonal trend, the unemployment figure was lower than one might have expected.
    Earl of Dalkeith: When the right hon. Gentleman is making further plans for dealing with this terrible situation, will he recognise that the situation is very much more critical than one is led to believe by the unemployment figures themselves, taking into account the fact that 120,000 Scotsmen have left the country during the two years since he took office?
    Mr. Ross: I would not like to get involved in a debate about that with the hon. Gentleman, and he would not like it if I started to deal with the number of people who have emigrated during the past 15 to 16 years, but it is true that all our considerations of this matter take into account the need for new jobs for those who are unemployed, and for those whom we would like to retain in Scotland. One of the difficulties that I see now in relation to migration is a change of attitude. It is not a drift south. It is the attraction abroad of people who are already working in highly skilled jobs which we have to combat.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish Trades Union Congress and other representative bodies regarding the level of unemployment in Scotland; and what replies he has sent.
    Mr. Ross: I have recently had a full discussion with the S.T.U.C. during which it put forward its views on the level of unemployment and on other questions affecting Scotland's economy. Other representative bodies, including local authorities, have also brought their views to my attention. In reply I have stressed the positive achievements of the Govern-
    1706
    ment's regional development policies, which in Scotland are being reflected in the continuing high level of new industrial building and in the relative stability in employment compared with the rest of Great Britain.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the implications to Scotland of the Government's policy of maintaining a pool of employment, as recently explained by the Governor of the Bank of England? Is the current level of unemployment high enough for the Government's purpose, or do they wish it to go higher?
    Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the questions which I have answered, it would have been clear to him that the Government intend to continue with their policies to reduce the level of unemployment in Scotland.
    Mr. G. Campbell: What estimates has the right hon. Gentleman made of the approximate levels of unemployment for January and February, both on the basis of a good weather winter, and a bad weather one?
    Mr. Ross: I have not made any estimates, and I shall not enter into the realm of prophecy as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite did last winter when they were proved unfounded in their gloom.
    Earl of Dalkeithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what emergency measures he is taking to reflate the Scottish economy in the field of public expenditure on services within Scotland so as to minimise the growth of unemployment during the winter months.
    Mr. Ross: It is not the policy of the Government to embark upon a general reflation of the economy at the present time. But, as part of our plan of selective help for the development areas, I have authorised the bringing forward, by local authorities, regional hospital boards and certain other public bodies, of minor works of improvement and maintenance to the value of over£5½ million, provided that they can be completed during the coming winter.
    Earl of Dalkeith: Would I be right in thinking that the limited and belated action which the Government are taking to get some reflation in the Scottish

    1707
    economy is a clear admission that over the last few years they have been deflating the Scottish economy? Was not this an act of criminal folly in the light of the experience gained by previous Governments, and should he not therefore draw this to the attention of the Prime Minister by tendering his resignation?
    Mr. Ross: The experience of previous Governments is sad indeed. We can remember that through the winter months of 1962, the whole of 1963 and the spring of 1964, the monthly average of unemployment in Scotland was 100,000 and over. I can understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. What we are doing here is additional to what has already been done. I would not have thought that the regional employment premium, which means£40 million per year of reflation in Scotland, was something to be laughed away.
    Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that one of the very important methods of reducing unemployment in Scotland would be by going ahead with the industrial retraining schemes for new industries, which we have already been promised?
    Mr. Ross: If my hon. Friend has been following announcements that have been made he will know that this is one of the areas in which we have gone very well ahead, both in relation to Government training centres and in relation to the grants to incoming industry. Incoming industry has received, in Scotland, over£400,000 to train about 22,000 workers. The "in plant" training is additional to that, and recently the Minister of Labour made an announcement increasing grants in relation to training in Scotland. It is one of the interesting things about the C.B.I. report in Scotland that it still talks about shortages of skilled labour at a time when we have this high rate of unemployment.
    Mr. Stodart: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the condition is that the money must be spent before the end of the winter, is the sort of thing on which the money is to be spent perhaps the resurfacing by hospital boards of approach roads that are already in a beautifully tarred condition?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should have a little more faith in the local authorities and regional hospital boards in Scotland than to put a question like that. The work that they are doing will be work that is essential and which they have long wanted to do.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, following the visit of the Committee on Agriculture to Brussels, he will now issue a White Paper on the effects on agriculture in Scotland if Great Britain joins the Common Market.
    Mr. Ross: No, Sir.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister's policy has now been exploded, as I hoped it would be? Will he say what measures he has in mind for increasing agriculture in Scotland and ensuring from Commonwealth countries and elsewhere cheap and good food supplies for our people at home?
    Mr. Ross: I think that we will have plenty of opportunity to discuss the Government's measures in relation to agriculture when we move further into the Session, and on to the Price Review. I think the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied that what we have done in the past, and what we intend to do, will strengthen Scottish agriculture. To that extent, no matter what it faces it will be able to meet the challenge The question of agriculture and the Community was fully covered in the White Paper dealing with agriculture in Scotland and England.
    Mr. Stodart: In view of the fact that last week the President of the N.F.U. said that during the last three years the net output figure had dropped by two points in the index, will the right hon. Gentleman say how he has strengthened Scottish agriculture?
    Mr. Ross: I think that the last Price Review was very satisfactory to the farmers. They were able to see the opportunity for increasing production.
    Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: As there are grave doubts about our prospects of entering the Community at this time, and in view of the statement by the Prime Minister yesterday that even if we fail

    1709
    at this time our application is in, and remains in, will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement clarifying the position to alleviate the doubts and fears which exist in the minds of hill and upland farmers in the Highlands of Scotland?
    Mr. Ross: I think we have made clear that we recognise the problems which will arise for certain sections of the agricultural community. This was pointed out in the White Paper to which I referred. When we get to the point of negotiations, all these problems will be adequately covered, and we hope safeguarded.

    Drug Addiction
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what study he has made of drug addiction in Scotland.
    Mr. Millan: An Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence was appointed last year by my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary, the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State to study the misuse of drugs in Great Britain as a whole and to advise on remedial measures.
    Mr. MacArthur: Is the hon. Gentle. man aware that there is some concern in Scotland about the possibilty of drug taking among young people spreading from the South? Will he give the House an assurance that he will take whatever urgent and effective action may be necessary to protect young people from the corruption of drugs?
    Mr. Millan: We are looking at this problem from the point of view of Great Britain as a whole, but I am glad to say that the evidence so far does not show that there has been any widespread misuse of drugs in Scotland, and I hope very much that we will be able to maintain that position.
    Mr. Brewis: Are we in Scotland making any contribution to the health aspects of drug taking, whether the taking of marijuana has any effect on lung cancer, or whether L.S.D. has any effect on leukaemia? Are we in Scotland making any contribution to research into this problem?
    Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman knows that a good deal of research is
    1710
    being done into the whole question of drug dependence, and we in Scotland are participating in this.

    Manufacturing Output
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will bring up to date the figures relating to production in manufacturing industries in Scotland contained in Table A of Command Paper No. 2864; and if he will state the total percentage increase in manufacturing production between October, 1964 and the latest available date, and the corresponding percentage increase during the comparable period prior to October, 1964.
    Mr. Ross: Manufacturing output in Scotland rose between 1964 and 1966 by 2·8 per cent. per annum.
    The latest period for which Scottish figures are available is the second quarter of this year. Output in the year to June, 1967 was 8·2 per cent. higher than it was in the year to June, 1964, which was in turn 6·6 per cent. above the level of the year to June, 1961.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the Secretary of State confirm that over the past two years the increase in manufacturing output has been falling and not rising? Is this what he means by the progress in the Scottish economy that he referred to in answer to earlier Questions?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Member is wrong. Taking the relative rates in relation to the years in respect of which he posed his Question, the rate of growth in Scotland from 1960–61 to 1963–64 was only two-thirds the rate of the United Kingdom as a whole. It has been one-quarter above the United Kingdom raw during the three years to 1966–67.

    Local Rates
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage increase has taken place in the total amount raised in local rates by Scottish local authorities in the current financial year compared with 1966–67; and what increase took place in each of the previous three years.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I cannot yet

    1711
    give a precise figure for the current year, but on my present information the increase is likely to be of the order of 2·5 per cent. The latest adjusted figures for earlier years show increases of 7·5 per cent. in 1964–65, 9 per cent. in 1965–66 and provisionally 17 per cent. in 1966–67.
    Mr. Taylor: I hope that the Minister's optimistic forecast will prove correct, but is he aware that many old-established businesses in the major cities are being forced to close down because of their experience of the exorbitant high rate burden? Has he any plans to alleviate the problems facing commerce and industry in our cities?
    Dr. Mabon: My estimate is not a prophecy; it is an estimate based on returns from authorities with 85 per cent. of the aggregate Scottish rateable value. This estimate is based on the application of the first year of the new Act—a singularly successful year in terms of the general rate increase that we have experienced over the last 20 years regularly under both parties. With reference to the supplementary question which applies only to Glasgow, this is a matter which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is actively considering in the light of representations that he has received.
    Mr. Manuel: Is my hon. Friend aware that industry in Scotland is being helped by the Government and domestic ratepayers, to the tune of 50 per cent.—industry having been derated to that extent?
    Dr. Mabon: That is another question, which I would not like to go into now.

    Dairy and Cropping Farms
    Mr. Stodartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the average income per acre from dairy and cropping farms in Scotland is so much lower than it is in England and Wales; and what action he proposes to take in order to remedy this.
    Mr. Buchan: The reasons are complex, but an important factor is that soil and climatic conditions tend to restrict the range of crops that can be grown, while the shorter grazing season involves
    1712
    higher winter feed costs. Cropping farms in Scotland were also particularly adversely affected by the relatively low level of potato prices for the 1965 crop. In dairying, however, the average income per farm has been at about the same level as in England and Wales during the last two years. The economic position of all types and sizes of farm is taken into account in the Annual Review.
    Mr. Stodart: Does not the hon. Member realise that that is a most vacillating reply? Is not he aware that in an appendix to the Agricultural White Paper there are figures that show that since 1963 the income per acre has been halved compared with that of England in one case, and reduced by 50 per cent. in another? When is he going to stop merely looking at the cold print and start doing something about it?
    Mr. Buchan: That is a most extraordinary question. The hon. Member should know that the whole farming problem has been treated according to the problems of areas—not necessarily on a geographical basis but according to the kind of farm. That is the way in which the differentiation is made. In terms of national differentiation, we are trying to recover the ground lost by the party opposite, for example, in respect of sugar beet, but generally speaking we are dealing with the problem according to the nature of the farm.

    Tourism (Selective Employment Tax)
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Secretary or State for Scotland whether he will now act on the recommendation in the annual report for 1966–67 of the Scottish Tourist Board that the adverse effect of the Selective Employment Tax on the tourist industry required immediate re-consideration?
    Mr. Youngerasked the Secretary ofState for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish Tourist Board concerning the effect of Selective Employment Tax on the success of that industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Dickson Mahon: My right hon. Friend received written representations in June, 1966, and the Board also mentioned this matter in its Annual Report for 1966–67. I have nothing to add to

    1713
    the Answer which was given to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) on 26th July about action on these representations.—[Vol. 751, c. 144–5.]
    Mr. Campbell: Does the Minister really think that the change for part-time workers, which was urged strongly from this side a year earlier—before the tax came into effect—is all that is required? When will he take effective action to relieve the Scottish tourist industry of the burdens imposed by this Government?
    Dr. Mabon: The hon. Member tends to exaggerate the position in respect of the tourist industry in Scotland. We have had clear indications, not only from individuals but generally, that this has been another good year for tourism. We are always prepared to look at the effects of the application of the S.E.T. as witness the concession—as it has been called—to which the hon. Member has referred.
    Mr. Younger: Surely the Minister has been made aware of the fact that the entire tourist industry is up in arms about the effects of this tax. If he has only been made aware of that, surely he realises that the greatest step he could take would be to suspend this tax for this winter, in order to prevent people being laid off and adding to the pool of unemployed.
    Dr. Mabon: Taxes are like sin; we are all against them. I can understand the tourist industry being annoyed about this, but the representations that we have had lately have been few, no doubt because hoteliers and others in the tourist industry have been busy catering for the large numbers of tourists coming here despite the tax.
    Mr. David Steel: Does the Minister realise that the loss of revenue accruing to the Government by the abandoning of S.E.T. would be more than offset by the increase in foreign earnings which the increased capacity of the Scottish tourist industry would bring?
    Dr. Mabon: I am not aware of that. I have not seen the breakdown of these figures.

    Meat and Livestock Industry
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the present situation in
    1714
    the meat and livestock industry; and what measures he will take to improve it.
    Mr. Buchan: Yes, Sir. Measures were taken at the last Annual Review to provide further encouragement to cattle, sheep and pig production, and the position will be subject to a further detailed examination at the forthcoming Annual Review. The Meat and Livestock Commission will be particularly concerned with measures to improve the industry's efficiency in production and marketing.

    Agricultural Buildings (Rating)
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is his policy that buildings on agricultural holdings used for intensive livestock production are to be fully rated; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Stodartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in connection with recent decisions affecting the rating of agricultural buildings; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchan: The National Farmers' Union of Scotland has recently made certain representations to my Depart. ment on this matter and my right hon. Friend is considering these.
    Mr. Brewis: Will the Minister say why his right hon. Friend has allowed these buildings in Scotland to be assessed for rates, per sq. ft., at twice or three times those applying in England? Does not this make it impossible for Scottish farmers to compete?
    Mr. Buchan: With respect, that is not the province of the Secretary of State; it is a matter for the valuation authorities. We are bound by statute, as they are. The whole question that has arisen as a result of their decisions is being considered.
    Mr. Stodart: Is the Minister aware that this is a difficult problem and that it is not limited to the question of intensive units? Will his right hon. Friend take into careful account the fact that a higher poundage in respect of rates in Scotland will almost certainly put Scottish producers at a very great competitive

    1715
    disadvantage compared with people owning similar accommodation in England?
    Mr. Buchan: All aspects of this matter will be brought in to consideration.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Minister aware that the rating position as it applies at present penalises particularly those who are adopting modern methods of production, and that in many cases this is incompatible with the objectives of the Farm Improvement Scheme?
    Mr. Buchan: This point has been put very forcibly. All these questions are under consideration, and nothing can be added by way of an answer at this stage.
    Mr. Baker: Does not the Minister agree that the way to sort out this problem once and for all is to make a small Amendment, to wit, defining the use of the words "agricultural land" in the latest Rating Act? That would solve the problem in one.
    Mr. Buchan: I am afraid that not many people involved with this problem find it as easy as that, including the Scottish National Farmers' Union.
    Mr. Brewis: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest possible moment on the Adjournment.

    Roberts Report on Teachers
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to implement the recommendations of the Roberts Report on teachers.
    Mr. Millan: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 23rd October to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). —[Vol. 751, c. 377–80.]
    Mr. Brewis: Will the Minister see that any proposals that he makes to the management side on the Roberts Report take into account the teaching position in places outwith Glasgow and Lanarkshire and include such places as Dundee?
    Mr. Millan: I think the hon. Member knows that the tentative proposals which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has put forward are designed to con-
    1716
    centrate help where it is most required. I have no doubt that as various discussions and negotiations proceed, the difficulties in the other areas which he mentioned will be taken into account.

    Personal Case (Lossiemouth)
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he has refused permission to Lossiemouth Town Council to sell a house to a widow who has lived in it for more than 30 years.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Because there is still a substantial need in the burgh for local authority houses to let.
    Mr. Campbell: Is the Minister aware that the majority of the houses in this area have already been sold by the council, that this house could not be available to an applicant from the list without the present occupier being evicted and that the sale would provide a substantial contribution to the cost of a new house, thereby helping the housing programme?
    Dr. Mabon: I am aware that 171 people are waiting for a house in the burgh. I am aware, too, that the lady in question, who has lived in the house for more than 30 years, has been given no assurance either that if she leaves the house or if she dies the tenancy will go to her daughter, who has two children to look after. That is entirely within the town council's discretion. I am sorry that the town council has sold all these houses when it could have encouraged the people to buy houses privately built and thus let others on the waiting list have houses in Lossiemouth.
    Mr. Campbell: Will the Minister look at this matter again? His decision can only be doctrinaire in view of the facts.
    Dr. Mabon: It is within the powers of the town council to give to the old lady an assurance that would comfort her in her present predicament. It is also within the competence of the town council to help to encourage those in council houses who can afford it to buy houses in the area and to let the 171 people who are waiting for a house get one.
    Mr. Campbell: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply to the Question, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Tenant Farmers (Security of Tenure)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to introduce legislation giving further protection and security of tenure to tenant farmers.
    Mr. Buchan: My right hon. Friend is giving urgent consideration to the representations which have been made to him on this matter and he will make a statement when his consideration is completed.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be a limited amount of satisfaction at that reply? Does he not recognise that a good deal of hardship is being caused to tenant farmers by the callous treatment of them by the previous Tory Administration in their Agriculture Act? Will my hon. Friend prevent the eviction of these tenant farmers, about whom hon. Members opposite seem to be so very interested in other matters?
    Mr. Buchan: I am well aware of the situation described by my hon. Friend. I do not think that it would be very useful for me to comment further on it beyond what I have said.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Under-Secretary aware that if the suggested legislation is not included in the Queen's Speech, a lot of people will regard it as greatly to the shame of the Government?
    Mr. Buchan: I do not see why the hon. Member should say at this stage that it would be shameful to the Government when the event in question occurred due to the activity of the party opposite. I am quite sure that people will make their own deductions.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that several hundred farmers recently attended an auction sale of a farm in Lanarkshire and that a 314-acre farm was auctioned for £24,000? It was also stated that the owner of the land still had 56,000 acres to sell. If my hon. Friend wants further particulars, I can give him the extract from the newspaper headed
    "Tenant buys a farm from Sir Alec."
    Mr. Stodart: Is the Under-Secretary aware that it is rubbish to talk of the 1958 Act as a callous one when it did
    1718
    no more than relax a situation which imposed an excessive rigidity on the whole agricultural system?
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hector Hughes, Question 23.
    Mr. Maclennan: On a point of order. In view of the importance of this matter to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland and the awareness of the hardship which is being caused by this Tory legislation, I shall seek—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must give notice in the conventional way.

    Commonwealth Games
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what special facilities he plans under Government authority to attract or enable visitors to the forthcoming Commonwealth Games in 1970 in Edinburgh to visit North-East Scotland.
    Mr. Millan: The Games will present a splendid opportunity for the attraction of visitors to all parts of Scotland. The Scottish Tourist Board, in concert with the British Travel Association, is already preparing to take full advantage of it.
    Mr. Hughes: In thanking my hon. Friend for that constructive Answer, may I ask whether he realises that the Commonwealth Games of 1970 provide a splendid opportunity of conferring on foreign tourists the advantages of the beauties of Royal Deeside, the City of Aberdeen and the Braemar Games?
    Mr. Millan: There are very many attractions in Scotland and I am sure that those which my hon. and learned Friend has mentioned will be enjoyed very much by the visitors whom we expect to have in 1970.

    Scottish Trawler Fleet (Oil Surcharge)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, as a consequence of the two letters sent to him last July by the Scottish Trawlers Federation, he is yet in a position to arrange for a subsidy payment to the Scottish trawler ffeet to offset the cost of the surcharge on oil prices.
    Mr. Buchan: The recent financial results of the trawler fleets are now

    1719
    being reviewed, and the Government will announce a decision on assistance from the supplementary fund as soon as this review is complete.
    Mr. Hughes: Is not this a thoroughly uneconomic way of depriving British fish-eaters of their diet and depriving the trawler fishermen of their jobs? Will my hon. Friend take steps to prevent this?
    Mr. Buchan: I will do my very best to prevent deprivation both to fish-eaters and to fish-finders.
    Mr. Stodart: Is the Under-Secretary aware that he had an opportunity to make this change in July, when we debated the Supplementary Estimates? Can he confirm that the surcharge is, in most cases, equivalent to the whole profit that is earned by the average trawler? Does he not think it disgraceful that amendments are not being made?
    Mr. Buchan: I agree that the fuel costs to the trawlers are proportionately more than in most other areas of industry. It is partly because of this that we have brought forward our six months' review from December to October to look at the whole position.

    Scottish National Plan
    Mr. Russell Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he proposes to issue a revised edition of the Scottish National Plan.
    Mr. Ross: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer I gave to the hon. Members for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) and Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) on 10th May.—[Vol. 746, c. 1471.]
    Mr. Johnston: Would not the Secretary of State admit that the economic situation, which may not be wholly within the control of the Government, has outdated the Scottish Plan? If the Plan is outdated, surely we must have it brought up to date, otherwise there is no point in having it.
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Member is quite wrong. Our strategy and our targets are right. It may well be, as I said on 10th May and as I repeat today, that it may take a little longer, but that does not invalidate the actual targets.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does not the Secretary of State realise that we are getting a little sick and tired of his constantly saying that these targets will take that little longer to reach? How much longer?
    Mr. Ross: Not quite as long as it took the party opposite to do the first thing, which was from 1951 to 1963.

    Industrial Development (Highlands)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is his intention to take the steps necessary to secure a major infusion of modern technological industry into the Highlands, so as to create, in association with existing developments, an economy which will sustain a rising population.
    Mr. Ross: The development of industries of this kind is an important objective of the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
    Mr. Rankin: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer, because it endorses many of the things which I said during the Committee stage, and it also sets at nought the fears which have been openly expressed by many informed persons in Scotland.
    Mr. Ross: Many of those fears, some of which were expressed during September, were quite unjustified.
    Mr. G. Campbell: Can we be sure that after this statement the Minister of State will not make a statement of a quite different character about the same subject?
    Mr. Ross: No matter what kind of assurance we give from the Dispatch Box, hon. Members opposite rise to every rumour, even those which they do not start themselves.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the special needs of the Highland area of Scotland, he will take those measures required to provide the Highlands and Islands Development Board with powers adequate for securing modern industrial development in the area under their control.
    Mr. Ross: The Act under which the Board was set up gave it wide powers

    1721
    to foster industrial development in its area, and I am not aware of any important respect in which they might be further expanded.
    Mr. Rankin: All that the Question seeks to clarify is that the Board of Trade will not—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must put questions.
    Mr. Rankin: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Board of Trade will not be the responsible authority?
    Mr. Ross: It is difficult to discuss vague, unspecified projects. When we examine specific projects, we can decide exactly how they are to be operated.
    Mr. Brewis: With all the attention which the Highlands are receiving at present, will the right hon. Gentleman see that other areas, like South-West Scotland, are not forgotten?
    Mr. Ross: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that South-West Scotland is not neglected and will not be neglected, as is shown by the indication given to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) in respect of his constituents over the development of pit closures.

    Scottish Economic Council
    Mr. Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many times the Scottish Economic Council has met; and at how many of the meetings he has presided.
    Mr. Ross: The Council has had 21 meetings at 17 of which I have presided.
    Mr. Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House specifically what advice the Council gave to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport about the closure of railway lines in Banffshire?
    Mr. Ross: As the hon. Gentleman should know, the advice given by the Council to me as well as to any other Minister through me is confidential.

    Brucellosis Eradication Scheme
    Mr. Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that an adequate number of technicians exist throughout Scotland for the effective implementation of the voluntary brucellosis
    1722
    eradication scheme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchan: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that we have a sufficient number of technicians to cope with the requirements of the scheme, but he will be keeping the matter under review.
    Mr. Baker: Can the hon. Gentleman say to what extent this voluntary scheme is a success? Would he not agree that it is essential for the eradication of brucellosis that the scheme should be made compulsory without delay?
    Mr. Buchan: The hon. Member will be aware of some of the problems involved in making the scheme compulsory. If we set out upon a compulsory eradication programme at the present time it might involve the slaughter of 14 per cent. to 15 per cent. of the herds. As he should know, we would prefer to see how the voluntary scheme operates before we consider that step.

    Raasay Home Farm
    Mr. Russell Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet received payment for Raasay Home Farm, which has been sold by his Department.
    Mr. Buchan: My right hon. Friend expects payment in full of the purchase price not later than 31st October, 1967.
    Mr. Johnston: I hope that the expectation of the hon. Gentleman will be realised. May I ask him if he will now admit that the activities of Dr. Green of Raasay are a public scandal? Can he now assure me that his Department or the Highlands and Islands Development Board will do something to release the stranglehold on development which this man has on the island?
    Mr. Buchan: This is one of those questions where it would not be helpful for me to make any further comment. I know that the Highlands and Islands Development Board has discussed the position with the hon. Member, and no doubt would be prepared to do so again.

    Roads (Expenditure)
    Mr. Dewarasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now

    1723
    announce the proposed level of expenditure on new construction and improvement of roads in Scotland in 1970–71.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Exchequer expenditure on new road construction and improvement of motorways, trunk and principal roads in Scotland is expected to rise to about £35 million in 1970–71. Together with expenditure by local authorities, total public investment on the Scottish road programme in 1970–71 will be about £40 million.
    Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister confirm that this represents something in the region of an increase of 100 per cent, in expenditure in a period of just over six years? Will he also agree that the equivalent figure for road improvements and constructions in the last Conservative year, 1964–65, was under £16 million? Will he further give an assurance that in this enormously expanded programme the north-east of Scotland will not be neglected in the way that it has been in the past?
    Dr. Mabon: I can give the assurance asked for. In relation to the public investment, it is true that roads take second place only to housing in the present proposal. I agree that the reason why the North-East has not had what appears to be a fair share of its programme is because of the smallness of the road programme in the years for which we were not responsible.
    Mr. G. Campbell: Will the Minister confirm that the expanding road programme in Scotland up to 1970 is the previous Conservative Government's programme, altered only by the cuts made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister in the summers of 1965 and 1966?
    Dr. Mabon: There were promises, I quite agree. There were no plans, there were no proposals and there was no money. All of these things have been done by this Administration. When we came into office there were 100 miles of motorways and dual carriageways in Scotland. By the end of 1970 there will be 290 miles of such roads.

    Industrial Premises (Rating)
    Mr. James Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the average net rateable value per
    1724
    square foot of industrial premises in Scotland;
    (2) What is the average cost of rates to industry in Scotland, expressed as a percentage of total costs.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Information is not available as to the average industrial rate burden in Scotland as a percentage of total costs. I understand that for a standard factory on a modern industrial estate, local Assessors work from a rateable value of about 1s. 3d. per square foot. Individual factory valuations will, however, reflect factors such as the age and quality of the building, its finish and its location.
    Mr. Davidson: Perhaps I can ask a double question in view of the reply to two of my Questions. Can the Minister give me a comparative figure for commercial holdings in Scotland? Is he aware that the policy of rating intensive livestock units will add from 2s. to 6s. per unit to the cost of pig production in Scotland, equivalent to 10 per cent, of the net profit or 2 per cent, of the total costs?
    Dr. Mabon: I am sorry but without notice I cannot give the figure which the hon. Gentleman asked for. With regard to the second part of his question, I am not aware of this figure, but I have no doubt that it will be made known to the Secretary of State as a consequence of the courts' recent decision on the matter of intensive livestock units. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a matter for legislation, even if the Secretary of State were to agree to it.

    Scottish Planning Council
    Mr. Mackintoshasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will permit Members of Parliament for the areas covered by the consultative committees of the Scottish Planning Council to attend the meetings or become members of the appropriate consultative committees.
    Mr. Ross: While Members of Parlia-for the areas covered by the Consultative Groups have sometimes met the Groups—on invitation or at their own request—it would in my view be inappropriate to make formal arrangements for their regular attendance at Group meetings.
    Mr. Mackintosh: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, is he aware that I am not clear about when these invitiations are issued because, when I and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) attended the Border Consultative Committee, the representatives welcomed this and said that they wished that we were in permanent attendance? Not only that—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Briefly and a Question.
    Mr. Ross: When I say that I do not want to formalise arrangements, I think that it might be embarrassing for Members of Parliament if they were to be members of these groups and found themselves unable to attend. I gather that most of these consultative groups meet in mid-week and Members could not give them their full attention. The ad hoc arrangements such as have been going on fairly successfully are the right way to do it, and it would be a matter for contact with the chairman and the officials of the groups.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that too many decisions and influences have been exerted by non-elected people and, in principle, is it not a good thing for elected Members to participate in discussions about the future of their constituents?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that these are consultative groups and that they are giving advice. We have brought into the sphere of interest very many more people who would not have been able to give up their full time for local authority work. Local authority people are there too, but business men and men of commerce are also giving valuable time, time that would not otherwise be available to the Government.
    Mr. Mackintoshasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Scottish Planning Council intends to publish a report on its activities since its formation or when an account of progress towards the targets set in The Scottish Economy (Command Paper No. 2864) will be published.
    Mr. Ross: Accounts have been given of the work of the Scottish Economic
    1726
    Planning Council in the debates on the Scottish economy and, in particular, the debate of 5th July, 1967. Regular progress reports are made in the quarterly Bulletin on Scottish Development, which is circulated to hon. Members. It is not yet possible to assess fully the effects of the Government's regional policy measures and, in particular, the industrial investment grants and the regional employment premium.
    Mr. Mackintosh: Would not my right hon. Friend consider that the sort of reports given in this quarterly report are very thin, particularly on the detailed work that has been done? When so much planning is being done, is it not better to let the public know about that planning and the consultation that is taking place, and so still some of the doubts of hon. Gentlemen opposite?
    Mr. Ross: I understand exactly what my hon. Friend wants, and I assure him that after every meeting of the Planning Council—these meetings take place about once every two months, although important committee meetings take place between time—there is always a Press conference at which the work that has been done is gone over. I assure my hon. Friend that the Press give full coverage to what is said at those conferences.
    Mr. MacArthur: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall two targets set out in the White Paper; encouragement to the service industries and help for tourism? Is he aware that all his actions, since those targets were set out, have hampered, penalised and discriminated against those industries?
    Mr. Ross: I assure the hon. Gentleman that employment in the service industries is still expanding and that there is no indication to support the fears, voiced by hon. Gentlemen opposite for a number of years, that the tourist industry is in a crippled state.
    Mr. MacArthur: Ask them.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Strike-Reconnaissance Aircraft
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the alternative to the cancelled Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft.
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the provision of a replacement for the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft cancelled earlier this year.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): Our review of the operational requirement for strike-reconnaissance aircraft and the various alternative ways of meeting it, about which I told the House in July, has been making good progress and so has the B.A.C. project study. We have also had talks with the Germans and Italians on the possibilities of a collaborative project. Fundamental issues are at stake here which require the most thorough examination and further work remains to be done, but I can assure the House that we are doing all we can to arrive at a solution as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Marten: Are the Government considering a purely national alternative to this variable geometry 'plane. Has the right hon. Gentleman given full consideration to the dangers of a preemptive air strike, as illustrated in the Egypt-Israel war? Has he considered the vertical take-off concept as an alternative?
    Mr. Healey: We are considering the possibility of a purely national project, but all hon. Members will agree that if we could develop a sound collaborative project, then that would be wise from all points of view. The virtues of V.T.O.L. or V.S.T.O.L. are being considered.
    Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is two and a half years since he made the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft the core of his defence programme? Is it good enough for him to come to the House at this time, some four months after its cancellation, and say that he does not yet know with what to replace it?
    Mr. Healey: As with so many other matters, the hon. Gentleman is inaccurate. I never said that this aircraft was the core of our defence programme.
    Mr. Barnett: Will an aircraft of this capability be required if, as many of us hope, we will no longer have a military rôle east of Suez?
    Mr. Healey: The precise performance characteristics of a strike-reconnaissance aircraft depend on where the aircraft is likely to be deployed; and the decisions which we took in July are an important factor in the study which I am now carrying out.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the collaborative project based on the notion of an interceptor rôle only rather than a strike-reconnaissance rôle?
    Mr. Healey: There is no collaborative project at the moment for an advanced combat aircraft in the late 'seventies, but we are considering our own needs, as allied countries are considering theirs, and one of the factors which we shall take into account is the prospect of an advanced combat aircraft, with agreed performance characteristics, on which we can collaborate with one or more of our allies.
    Mr. Lubbock: Can the right hon. Gentleman say just what is the timing on the B.A.C. project? Can he also say how it relates to the investigation which is currently under way on co-operation with the Italians and Germans? In other words, if our purely national study is completed before co-operation has been agreed internationally, how will we be able to keep our team together?
    Mr. Healey: This is an important factor and if it were impossible for potential collaborators to reach a firm decision before the current allocation of money to B.A.C. was exhausted, it might be necessary to consider a further allocation.

    Aden and South Arabian Federation
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the military situation in Aden and the South Arabian Federation.
    Mr. Healey: Our preparations for withdrawal are well advanced. Within Aden State, control of Little Aden and the areas of Sheikh Othman and Mansura has been transferred to the South Arabian Forces. There have recently again been terrorist incidents.
    Mr. Marten: Has the final date of withdrawal been altered or is it still the same in view of the very volatile political situation there? Do our defence and

    1729
    aid undertakings still stand, whatever the complexion of the Government that is left?
    Mr. Healey: To answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary, we have always made it clear that the offer which we made to the then South Arabian Government was liable to adjustment in case a Government of a totally different complexion came to power. To answer the first part of his supplementary, no change has been decided in the date of withdrawal.
    Mr. Crawvshaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the policy for early withdrawal was arrived at so late in the day, when it must have been seen as the only practical possibility? How long will it take us to learn our lesson not to endanger Service men by keeping them in places where they are not welcomed by the population?
    Mr. Healey: As the hon. Gentleman knows, to answer his second point, this has always been the view of Her Majesty's Government. To answer his first point, I would point out to the House that negotiations took place for a long time with the very nationalist leaders who now appear to be coming together to form a new Government to persuade them to participate in government in a peaceful way. We all feel it a great tragedy that they did not agree to do so.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: To whom will the South Arabian forces be responsible after the transfer of power?
    Mr. Healey: To the South Arabian Government.[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that before final withdrawal anyone who has been in British or Federal service and who may be in danger as a result of the change of régime will be removed to a place of safety and will be looked after?
    Mr. Healey: We have this matter under consideration.

    Royal Navy (Missiles)
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress made in the development of surface-to-surface or
    1730
    submarine-to-surface missiles for the Royal Navy.
    The Minister of Defence for Equipment (Mr. Roy Mason): As the 1967 Supplementary Statement on Defence explains, surface attack capability for all ships from frigate upwards will be provided in helicopters. The first missile system for this purpose is expected to be in service next year. It is too soon for me to make statements about submarine-to-surface missiles.
    Mr. Wall: Does the Minister appreciate that the recent sinking of the Israeli destroyer "Eilat" underlies the danger to the Royal Navy? If Her Majesty's Government persist in phasing out the fixed-wing aircraft from the Royal Navy, will they at least expedite the development of surface-to-surface weapons? Will he guarantee to have them afloat before the aircraft carrier is phased out?
    Mr. Mason: Seaslug has a useful secondary capability. Sea Dart will also have a useful secondary capability. The helicopters that will be operating from frigates upwards will also be armed from next year with A.S. 12's and, later, we will have a more sophisticated airborne weapon.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: As it was said when the aircraft carriers were cancelled and phased out that the Royal Navy was to be equipped with a new surface-to-surface capability, may we now know whether this has been developed and whether it is to be so equipped? If, as we believe, this will not be the case, will the Government reconsider the whole of their defence policy in respect of the defence of our shipping and fleet for the 1970s? Will the Minister consider having some sort of shipborne aircraft to replace the carriers?
    Mr. Mason: It is proving much more sensible, much more flexible and, indeed, much more effective to have airborne missiles, mainly carried by helicopters; and these will be operating from every one of our new classes of vessels.
    Mr. Burden: Can the Minister say categorically that the Royal Navy is not inferior in surface-to-surface missiles to the Egyptian Navy?
    Mr. Mason: Not at all, because all our Navy at the moment is covered by aircraft carriers with strike aircraft, and they will not be phased out until the mid-1970s.
    Mr. Atkins: The Minister said that new ships would be equipped with new weapons. Is he in a positoin to say that when the aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm are no longer available, ships of the Royal Navy will be able to protect themselves against attacks such as that launched recently on the Israeli destroyer?
    Mr. Mason: I hope that the hon. Member will not take this too far. We are providing A.S.12 missiles now and they will be in service from next year on all ships from frigates upwards.
    Mr. Wall: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Sir E. Bullus: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the world-shattering importance and topical interest in Question No. 60, and knowing your own great generosity and courtesy to back benchers, I wonder, as the Minister is present, whether you would allow him to say something about these objects?
  Mr. Speaker: Even if Mr. Speaker were as generous as the hon. and gallant Member has stated, he has no power to persuade a Minister to answer a Question out of turn. I understand that the Minister is to answer Question No. 44.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ABSENTEES AND DESERTERS)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
44. Mr. ALLASON to ask the Secretary of State for Defence what fresh instructions he has issued on the arrest of absentees and deserters.
The Minister of Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will now answer Question No. 44.
Instructions have been issued to Army Home commands and incorporated in
1732
Queen's Regulations, that suspected deserters and absentees should not be arrested under Section 74 of the Army Act, unless they admit that they are soldiers, and also that, where suspects have been previously arrested by the civil police and discharged by the magistrates, they should not be rearrested in the United Kingdom, except Scotland, under Section 74. Similar instructions have been issued to the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.
I have given these instructions in the light of the results of the inquiries into the arrest of Leslie Parkes on 9th February, 1967. On 15th February I undertook to make a statement to the House when these inquiries were completed, but as it deals with a number of points raised by hon. Members, it is unavoidably a long one and I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Mr. Allason: While the arrangements which the Minister has annouced may well work in peacetime, has he considered that in the unhappy event of war they would not work at all and that in time of war it is necessary for the military police to have power to arrest? Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, give an undertaking that these arrangements will apply only in peace time, that he will not change the law, and that it would still be possible for the military police to arrest in war time?
Mr. Healey: With respect, this is not the time to take such a decision. I am perfectly satisfied that the changes in Queen's Regulations that I propose are necessary and will meet the desire of Members on both sides as they expressed them at the time of the Parkes arrest.
On the question of any changes in the law, in war time many changes might be required in such circumstances, and they would, if necessary, then be considered.
Mr. Lipton: Is it not the fact that men who deserted in the 1939–45 war are still liable to arrest and recall as, also, are National Service men? Will my right hon Friend look at these Regulations and close the book some time or other?
Mr. Healey: I am always ready to look at any suggestion made by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Bellenger: When the police are trying to apprehend a man as a deserter or absentee, as they had reason to believe in the Parkes case, will they caution him, as is done in most other criminal cases?
Mr. Healey: With respect, I think that my right hon. Friend would be wise to look at the OFFICIAL REPORT. AS the House knows, I shall be answering Questions again in a fortnight's time, and if there are any Questions that hon. Members want to ask as a result of the publication in the OFFICIAL REPORT I shall be happy to answer them.
Following is the statement:
On 9th July, 1963, Leslie Parkes enlisted in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps on a nine-year engagement. On 3rd December, 1965, as his general conduct was not satisfactory, he was given formal warning that if there was no improvement within three months he would be dischargd from the Army. On 23rd December, 1965, he left his unit in Germany without permission, and on 24th January, 1966, was formally recorded as absent without leave. The civil police were notified and, when they interviewed Parkes, he said that he had been discharged from the Army. After reference to the military authorities they arrested him on 23rd June, 1966, and brought him before the magistrates under Sections 186 and 187 of the Army Act, 1955.
Sections 186 and 187 of the Act provide that the police may arrest a suspected deserter and bring him before the magistrates; if the magistrates are satisfied that the suspect is subject to military law and consider that there is sufficient evidence to justify his trial under the Army Act, they have him delivered into military custody. The police conduct these proceedings, though they obtain most of their evidence from the Army.
Parkes was brought before the magistrates on 23rd June and 7th and 21st July, 1966. An officer from his unit identified him, produced his attestation paper, and described how he was found to be absent. In cross-examination the defending solicitor questioned the validity of the attestation. The police sought leave to call additional evidence but this request was not granted. Parkes then gave the evidence which was the subject of his subsequent conviction for perjury. He said that he had enlisted in December 1962, not July 1963—and for three years, not nine; and that in December 1965 his unit had allowed him to go home and had said that his discharge papers would follow. The magistrates discharged him—a decision against which there is no provision for appeal.
After the military authorities had collected all available evidence, the Army Legal Services advised that there was a case against Parkes, and the Ministry decided that he should be rearrested in time for proceedings to start on 13th February. The delay was partly due to the need to obtain evidence from witnesses
1734
who were in Germany and Aden, and partly to pressure of work on the Army Legal Services, which are under strength.
The present provisions in the Army Act regarding the arrest of deserters do not define clearly the respective functions of the civil and military authorities. The police have power to arrest a deserter under Section 186; but, in addition, the military authorities have power under Section 74 to arrest a soldier for any offence against the Act. In practice, the military authorities and the police co-operate in the arrest of deserters: usually the former arrest those who admit their identity as soldiers; the latter those who do not. The question whether the military authorities should rearrest a man who has been discharged by the magistrates under Section 187 has arisen only very rarely, although a footnote to that section in the Manual of Military Law states that a man can be rearrested under either Section.
It was more than 20 years since such a rearrest had taken place; in that case the surrounding circumstances were significantly different. and the man concerned, unlike Parkes, admitted that he was a soldier to the military police arresting him. In the Parkes case the disciplinary branch of the Ministry of Defence (Army) decided, on legal advice, that Parkes should be rearrested under Section 74.
The civil police co-operated to the extent of inducing him to go to a police station, where he was arrested by the Military Police on 9th February, 1967. The methods of his arrest were criticised, and the Chief Constable instituted an investigation. Since Parkes himself refused to make any complaint about the part played by the police in his arrest and the investigation did not disclose any other administrative or procedural fault, the Chief Constable has decided that no formal disciplinary action can ensue, but the criticism has been noted and the officer concerned has been given suitable advice.
Since Parkes's original unit was overseas, he was held, as is normal, in the depot of his Corps—the R.A.O.C. depot at Blackdown. Parkes was confined in the guardroom. The depot is an exposed, unfenced camp, where there have been several escapes, so the commanding officer decided that Parkes should be handcuffed when moving about the camp, but not in his cell. It was impossible to keep photographers out of the camp, and photographs of him handcuffed and escorted by guards armed with pick helves were published. After being charged before his commanding officer, Parkes was remanded for a Summary of Evidence, which an officer of Army Legal Services started to take.
The case had now attracted considerable-attention in Parliament and the Press. It had several features which suggested that the public interest might be better served if it proceeded no further. The way in which Parkes had been induced to go to the police station was open to criticism. The publication of photographs showing him handcuffed seemed likely to be prejudicial to him. There had been a long delay before each of his arrests—nearly 14 months had

1735
passed since he originally left his unit, and the preparation of a court-martial would have taken a further month or so.
Above all, there were doubts about the propriety of the action to arrest under Section 74 of the Army Act a man who had been discharged by the magistrates under Section 187. Even though such arrest was lawful, it seemed contrary to the public interest that a man who had been discharged by a civil court under one Section of the Act should be rearrested for the same offence by military procedures under a different Section of the Act. Taking all these factors into account, I therefore decided that Parkes ought to be released from custody and discharged from the Army forthwith.
In arriving at this decision, which I recognised would automatically involve the dismissal of the charge made against him by the military authorities, I was concerned to avoid the greater harm which I believed the public interest would have suffered if the case had been allowed to proceed—a concern widely held at the time and expressed in the House of Commons by the right honourable and learned Gentleman the Member for Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) on 14th February. In the absence of any military analogy to the civil procedures of "entering a nolle prosequi" or "offering no further evidence" there was no more satisfactory means by which the proceedings could be brought to an end.
On 15th February, 1967, Parkes was told that the case against him had been dropped, and that he was released from arrest. The next day he collected a temporary certificate of discharge from the Army; he received a final certificate of discharge with effect from 15th February. The commanding officer later endorsed the charge sheet, "Case dismissed".
1736
Parkes was subsequently arrested by the civil police on charges of perjury arising from his appearance before the magistrates in June-July, 1966. On 24th July, he pleaded guilty at the Stafford Assizes to five charges of perjury, and was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. His application for leave to appeal against the sentence was rejected on 5th October, 1967.
Some of the circumstances which together persuaded me that Parkes should be released arose from minor errors of judgment which have been brought to the attention of those concerned. But the case has revealed inadequacies in the law as it now stands, which I am sure the House would wish to see corrected.
There is a lack of clarity in the existing law in two fields: first, in the circumstances in which the respective powers of arrest under Sections 74 and 186 of the Army Act should be exercised; and, second, in the way in which military disciplinary procedures may be stopped once they have started—in particular, where a man has been released from custody, as in this case. When the Army Act is next reviewed, consideration will be given to redefining the respective civil and military powers of arrest of absentees and deserters, and to providing, in the course of military disciplinary procedures, some analogy to the civil processes of "offering no further evidence" or "entering a nolle prosequi".
Meanwhile, instructions have been issued to Army Home commands, and incorporated in Queen's Regulations, that suspected deserters and absentees should not be arrested under Section 74 of the Army Act unless they admit that they are soldiers, and also that, where suspects have been arrested by the civil police and discharged by the magistrates, they should not be rearrested in the United Kingdom (except Scotland) under Section 74.

MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY BILL
Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.
3.37 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Before we enter upon consideration of the Lords Amendments, I thought that it might help both sides of the House if I announced that I have selected the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) at line 5 of Lords Amendment No. 7 and his Amendment at line 8 of Lords Amendment No. 7.
With the Amendment to line 5, we shall be taking the Amendment in line 12, which is linked with it. I have not selected the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Chelmsford to Lords Amendment No. 9.
Mr. David Steel: I beg to move, That the Lords Amendments be now considered.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Clause 1.—(MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY.)
Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 1, line 8, leave out
"that practitioner and another registered practitioner"
and insert
"two registered medical practitioners."
Mr. David Steel: I gave notice in the Notice Paper that I would move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment, which has come forward at the last moment from Lord Dilhorne. It was a manuscript Amendment and the object was that the House should consider whether or not one of the two doctors mentioned in the Bill should be the doctor carrying out the operation. It should not, of necessity, be the doctor carrying out the operation, but I do not think that it is a point of sufficient substance to quarrel with their Lordships' House.
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I feel that the position of the opponents of the Bill is now rather like that of the party of which the sponsor of the Bill the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) is such a distinguished ornament—that we are dead but we refuse to lie down.
I had hoped to be associated with the hon. Member in rejecting this Amendment, but I now find, somewhat to my dismay, that he has changed his position on this issue and that, having put down a Motion that this House should disagree with the Lords he has apparently changed his mind. We have seen that happen in another place, and apparently this is something that is catching. I only wished to make a passing reference to the point, but I reflect to myself, put not your trust in prelates.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Even literary allusions to Members of another place must not be made if they are discourteous.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I apologise for my ecumenical remark, but I disagree with the proposed Amendment for the following reason. I can quite see that bringing in another doctor, a third doctor, would in certain circumstances make the operation of the Bill more flexible, but I should have thought it undesirable to have a position in which a doctor could be carrying out an abortion operation on which he himself had no very strong opinion one way or the other. Presumably a doctor would not carry out an abortion operation under these proposed arrangements if he had strong feelings against it, but we could very well get a situation where this issue was treated as a purely mechanical one by the third doctor concerned.
This is something that is very undesirable in itself, and it was a point made in the other place with some force by two noble Lords. To reduce the doctor to this purely mechanical position is undesirable. Surely, with an operation of this nature, which involves matters of life and death, the third doctor should be one who is medically and morally convinced of the desirability of the operation, and not one who is merely acting as an instrument of other doctors with whose opinions he does not necessarily agree or disagree.

1739
I therefore think that this is not an improvement of the Bill. It was added at the last moment in another place, and I hope that this House will not accept it.
Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I rise briefly to answer the one point of substance made by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), namely, whether or not there is any possibility under this Amendment of their Lordships which would require an individual doctor to do an operation with which he had no personal sympathy. I am sure that the House must accept that no doctor will perform an operation which he does not think necessary or does not agree with. This Amendment is an excellent one because it makes for reality. There is no doubt at all that on many occasions the surgeon performing the operation is the last person who would want to pronounce on a particular case.
I have in mind the kind of case which a general practitioner refers to a consultant psychiatrist. Here are two people apparently knowing all the circumstances relating to the events necessitating a possible termination. They have to refer the case to an obstetrician, but the obstetrician does not question what is involved. The consultant will say, "This is not a matter for me. I am not competent to judge on this issue, but if you, as a general practitioner knowing the family and all the circumstances, and the consultant psychiatrist knowing that aspect of the matter agree, I will carry it out."
Sometimes it is a matter of a surgeon carrying out an operation upon which he personally is not prepared to make a firm decision. It is then rather a negative thing than a positive thing. To impress on him the necessity of making a positive decision when in reality he is making a negative one, would be a misleading situation. It has never been my impression that the noble Lord, Lord Dilhorne, has been exactly bubbling over with good ideas, but when he comes forward with a very good idea like this I hope that this House will seize upon it.
Sir John Hobson: I would go the whole way with the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr.
1740
Winstanley) in what he has just said. It has always seemed to me in this very difficult matter that the really vital decision is the decision which, under the Bill, is to be formed in good faith by a qualified medical practitioner on whether an operation shall be performed or not. The Bill as it stands requires this firm opinion to perform an operation. I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health whether this might not form a trap in a hospital where consultants do form and properly come to a bona fide conclusion that the operation should be done, but leave it to a house officer or one of the lesser grades in the hierarchy of the hospitals actually to perform the physical part of the operation.
As I understand the Bill in its present form, unamended, if the surgeon had not himself come to the same conclusion on proper grounds by examining the whole case history and all the documents, he would be committing a criminal offence under the Bill. I should have thought it necessary and desirable—it would give a little flexibility in the National Health Service, particularly in hospitals —that it should not be absolutely essential that the man doing the operation has to look at the whole case history and come to the conclusion on that before an operation can be performed. Looking at this Amendment purely on merit and not at whether someone who moved it has been for or against the Bill, I think that the responsibility for making the decision which is placed on two doctors does not make it necessary that one or other of them has to perform the operation.
3.45 p.m.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I also agree with what the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said when he assured the House that no doctor would carry out an operation in these circumstances which he did not consider justified under the Bill. Nor do I think a consultant would require a junior doctor in his team to carry out an operation which he did not think justified, or which was against his conscience.
The Government's view is that this Amendment does not improve the Bill and nor does it impair the Bill. My view is that the practice under the Bill will be exactly the same as if the Amendment

1741
were not made. In all the circumstances, I think that the House would do well to accept the view of the sponsor and to accept the Lords Amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the difficulties about having accepted the first of the Lords Amendments, and one of the reasons why I was doubtful about its acceptance, is that their Lordships made no provision for acceptance of a purely drafting Amendment referring to page 2 of the Bill in subsection (3) of this Clause.
I beg to move the necessary manuscript Amendment, in page 2, line 2, to leave out the words
"another registered medical practitioner"
and to insert,
"two registered medical practitioners".
Mr. Speaker: This is most unusual, but it is in order. The House must consider what the hon. Member has said. He said that in another place a consequential Amendment was not made. He seeks to move it now. It is to page 2 of the Bill. I should have thought that we should take it at its proper place, but I will be advised by the Clerk. I am now advised that we may take it at this point.
The manuscript Amendment which the hon. Member now moves is to Clause 1, page 2, line 2, to leave out "another registered medical practitioner" and to insert "two registered medical practitioners". The House heard that this is purely consequential on the Amendment with which the House has concurred.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords Amendment No. 2: In page 1, line 13, after "family" insert:
"greater than if the pregnancy were terminated".
Mr. David Steel: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is an attempt on the part of their Lordships' House, which I think is quite a good one, to define the extent of the risk which a doctor would have to take into account. What we are saying in the Bill is that the risk of continuing without an operation must be greater than the risk necessarily involved in every termination of pregnancy.
This is a more precise definition of the word "risk" and one which I feel inclined to accept.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I agree with the sponsor of the Bill that the purpose of this Amendment is a definition of "risk". Where I disagree with him, and ask him to have second thoughts on the matter, is whether it is a good idea in a Bill of this kind to have a definition of the kind of risk which is involved. Is it not better to stick to the principle he himself has espoused earlier in our debates and to leave the question of close definition of "risk" to the medical profession itself? The hon. Member has been in the lead against inserting such words as, "or grave", "or serious", or other qualifications of risk, for good reasons.
This would merely confuse the medical profession without adding anything very substantial to the Bill. The use of these adjectives and attempts to define "risk" are much more likely to create confusion in the law than to clarify it.
If the Amendment were accepted, the Clause would read that an abortion could be carried out if the medical practitioners were
"of the opinion, formed in good faith—
(a) (i) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family greater than if the pregnancy were terminated."
This introduces a new principle into the Bill. It may seem to be attractive at first sight, but the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in the other place, are applicable here, that it looks attractive, but, then, so many things look attractive which, on further examination, turn out to be the reverse. The more one examines the implications of this Amendment, the more undesirable it seems. It will be extremely difficult to balance these risks in practice. One imponderable is being replaced by two.
There is the further argument which seems to me to be vital. There is always some risk in pregnancy, but is there always risk in an abortion? I have taken the view that abortion is, on the whole, a dangerous operation, but many arguments were addressed to the House and to the Standing Committee, a number of them from the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), stressing that abortion was a perfectly safe operation and could be a perfectly safe operation. If, therefore, we accept the standard of the

1743
balancing of risks, on that medical view we are turning the Bill into one of abortion on demand.
We should be aware of this point before we accept the Amendment without further discussion. It looks on the face of it to be rather an innocuous one, but enacts a very profound change in the Bill. We are being asked not to consider the risk to health objectively, but to substitute a comparative standard of such looseness and vagueness that it would enable any two doctors to carry out any abortion they wish. I ask the sponsor of the Bill to have second thoughts about accepting the Amendment, because the reasons he advanced for accepting it seemed to indicate that he had not adverted in his own mind to the possible far-reaching effects of these seemingly innocuous words.
The Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Tavern): It may assist the House if I make clear the Government's view of the effect of the Amendment. I do not take the view that this introduces any profound change in the Bill. It is not my view that in this case what is happening is a definition

"A.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, no person shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement, to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection:

5

Provided that in any legal proceedings the burden of proof of conscientious objection shall rest on the person claiming to rely on it.

10

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall affect any duty to participate in treatment which is necessary to save the life or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of a pregnant woman.

15

(3) In any proceedings before a court in Scotland, a statement on oath by any person to the effect that he has a conscientious objection to participating in any treatment authorised by this Act shall be sufficient evidence for the purpose of discharging the burden of proof imposed upon him by subsection (1) of this section."

Read a second time.
Mr. Speaker: We now come to the first of the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who will now move his Amendment in line 5.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 5, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 7.
My Amendment in line 12, which you, Sir, have indicated can be discussed with this Amendment, is purely consequential.
of the risk. The argument advanced in another place for the Amendment was that, as the Clause stood, it was, perhaps, too wide, because it appeared to allow an abortion however slight the risk and however trivial the injury to health.
There may be something in this criticism. The Amendment goes some way towards meeting it, and it makes it clear that an abortion on the grounds of injury to health can be justified only where the risks of allowing the pregnancy to continue are greater than the risks of terminating the pregnancy. I am aware that it can be argued that the doctor would perform this balancing act in any event, but it seems to us that the Amendment does no great harm and at any rate has the merit of making it clear on the face of the Bill that the doctor must balance the risk. I do not think that it is in any sense a profound change.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
Lords Amendment No. 7: After Clause 4, in page 3, line 43, at end insert new Clause "A" (Conscientious objection to participation in treatment).
This Lords Amendment concerns the conscience Clause which, I think we would all agree, is a very important part of the Bill. Perhaps the one point which commanded almost universal agreement in Committee and on Report was that there should be a conscience Clause of some kind in the Bill to protect the position of those who have conscientious objections, on whatever grounds, in taking part in abortion operations. It has been argued from the Ministry of Health that such a Clause is unnecessary. The point of view of those who attach importance

1745
to the Clause is that it is necessary, because, if abortion is accepted, as a result of the passing of the Bill, as a normal part of medical practice, the pressure on doctors, nurses and others in the healing professions will greatly increase to carry out abortions when they might have moral and scrupulous objections.
My Amendment to the Lords Amendment concerns the question of the burden of proof. This provision for shifting the burden of proof was put forward for inclusion in the Bill by the sponsor of the Bill and myself after some objections had been expressed in Committee as to the effect of the conscience Clause as it was originally drafted, and the provision was intended to cover cases where a plea of conscience was either frivolously raised or was raised to cover an actual negligence.
The Clause as it stands has been improved by the substitution by the other place of "treatment" for participation in an operation. This gives it a wider scope and it covers the situation of those who are unwilling to play any part in an abortion situation, whereas the Clause as previously drafted covered only those who were unwilling to take part in an abortion operation. There is also the question of the eventual development of a safe abortion operation by means of drugs, which, though medically unlikely at present, I think, might come in the future. It covers that situation, too.
4.0 p.m.
A new subsection has been put into the Clause which, in my view, makes it unnecessary to have the shifting of the burden of proof, which my Amendment would delete. I refer to subsection (2):
"Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall affect any duty to participate in treatment which is necessary to save the life or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of a pregnant woman."
If that provision remains in the Clause, the shifting of the burden of proof is unnecessary because it covers the case which caused anxiety in people's minds in Committee, the thought that there might be a case in which an operation was necessary, in which there had been some negligence, and in which conscientious objection was used as a cover-up later.
That is now taken care of, and, in the circumstances, the grave objections which arise to the shifting of the burden of proof apply with great weight. The argu-
1746
ments going the other way, which would, I think, have justified this change in the burden of proof, no longer operate.
In support of the deletion of the provision shifting the burden of proof, I make the following points. First, it is a reversal of ordinary criminal and civil practice. The almost invariable rule in the criminal law is that the burden of proof of a criminal offence rests upon the person alleging it, the prosecution. Equally, in civil actions, to which also the Clause was directed, the burden of proof has to be satisfied on a balance of probabilities. The new Clause, however, would put upon the person defending himself against a charge of criminal or civil negligence a very high burden of proof indeed. This is wrong in principle.
Mr. Charles Pannell: The hon. Gentleman is speaking of other things, but, in the best consideration of conscientious objection of which we have experience, that is, in time of war, a young man wanting to be released from certain obligations had the burden of proof resting upon him before a conscientious objectors' tribunal. This is a better analogy than the one which the hon. Gentleman is drawing.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I do not know that it is a better analogy, but I am prepared to adopt his analogy as my own and to say that that procedure, as a practical matter before the tribunals considering conscientious objection, which put the burden of proof on the person raising it, created a good many difficulties particularly for those alleging a conscientious objection not on very defined religious grounds.
They were put in great difficulty before the tribunals by that burden of proof. It may have been that, in that situation, we had to have it because there was no other means of dealing with the question, but there is here another means of dealing with it. It is not necessary. Therefore, I agree that the right hon. Gentleman's analogy is relevant, though I draw a different conclusion from it.
I am considering here particularly the position of those who would wish to raise what I might call pure conscientious objections. In practice, I suppose, the burden of proof for a doctor or nurse who is a member of the

1747
Roman Catholic Church would not be a very difficult one to discharge. It would be more difficult, but not impossible, for a member of the Church of England or of some other defined religious denomination. But the difficulty would arise for, say, the agnostic or humanist, and there are a good many such who have strong objection to the Bill. It has been one of the notable features of our debates that some of the most forthright opponents of the Bill both here and in another place have been those who definitely rejected any religious view as such.
The position of the agnostic or humanist should be considered. I can hardly believe that the right hon. Gentleman would wish to put the agnostic or atheist doctor in a worse position than that of the religious doctor.
Mr. C. Pannell: Before conscientious objectors tribunals, the agnostic and the humanist has always been in a worse position than the person who could put a label on his faith. The Catholic has a tremendous advantage in this sort of claim. I think that the hon. Gentleman had better leave the agnostics and humanists to make the best case they can. They have a harder job. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking largely for the Catholic Church in this matter.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman is again assisting me to establish my point. It is precisely because the agnostic or humanist doctor is likely to be put in a more difficult position that I am worried about this provision in the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman looks sceptical, but he must trust my bona fides in the matter. I am more concerned with the rights of conscience in this respect than with the claims of any particular region.
At an earlier stage of our proceedings, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) raised a difficulty which, again, relates to a particular doctor. What about the doctor, who may be an agnostic or so-called humanist—I object to the taking over of that word, but I use it for convenience—who had carried out an operation of abortion on one occasion and who, confronted with another situation later, wished to exercise his right of conscien-
1748
tious objection? This argument was met by the sponsor of the Bill with the argument that, in those circumstances, the objection could not be conscientious; it would by nature be a medical one. This is to oversimplify the issue.
It would be possible for a doctor who was approaching this problem in a conscientious and moral way to say in one circumstance, "Yes, an abortion is justified morally", it being necessary, perhaps, to save the life of the mother, and in a later situation to say, "This is a different state of affairs, in which I do not believe that it would be justified on moral grounds". The doctrine of necessity which might have applied in the first case would not necessarily apply in a second. Whereas he might have carried out an abortion in the first case, as a choice between two evils, those conditions might not obtain in the second case.
One can see what a difficult position the doctor would be in, faced with that problem, in having to establish his own conscientious conviction. What sort of evidence could be produced if he had to discharge the burden of proof? This is an important matter. The point which originally led to the insertion of this Clause in the Bill has been met, and I ask the sponsor now to accept my Amendment. I regret to say that, if he cannot do so, I must press it to a Division and ask my right hon. and hon. Friends and hon. and right hon. Members to support me in the Lobby.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). A great problem of conscience and a definition of where a conscience stands is involved. We have only recently seen in another place a reversal of conscientious belief. We have seen a creed shaken by the wind in the person of the Archbishop of Canterbury—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will confine himself to the Amendment.
Mr. Fraser: I am using that purely as an example of how change of mind in a person so distinguished as the Archbishop, understandably or not, can equally apply to lesser mortals engaged in an activity such as that dealt with in

1749
the Bill. It may well be that the objection of a medical practitioner will vary with the circumstances. It will be all the more difficult for proof to be established if that is to be done as the new Clause lays down.
I therefore hope that the House, and especially those hon. Members who are humanists and agnostics, will see what is proposed by my hon. Friend offers far easier defence for individual consciences, which may change with circumstances. The burden of proof will be difficult with the Clause as it now is.
Mr. C. Pannell: We are dealing with doctors whose contracts of service from now on will lay on them obligations and duties under the law of the land. They will take on their contracts knowing what the law of the land is, and, therefore, if they want to he excused from the duties that will fall to their colleagues they should make a claim to be so excused.
One thing I have always admired about conscientious objectors is the pride with which they have announced their conscientious objection. They do not usually suffer any lack of courage. Earlier, I made the point that it is easier for Catholics to make conscientious objection under the Bill, because everybody knows that it is part of their creed. That ran through all the debates here. It is more difficult for other men, but there is no other way out. Unless we lay on doctors the flat obligation to make their own case to be outside the normal practice of others in the medical profession there will be placed on the profession the possibility—I put it no higher—of backsliding in difficult circumstances. There is no doubt that this is a stern duty.
The longest debates we have had on conscientious objection over the years have concerned conscientious objection against military service. It has always been easier for the religious man to say, "It is against my religious faith." It is not usually Catholics who are involved in those cases; they are one of the more militant religions, and they do not have a great deal of experience in that sort of conscientious objection. It is usually Quakers and members of the rarer sects. Those who have watched conscientious objectors' tribunals know how sceptical old men have been who do not share the
1750
emotions and fears of younger men, and know how difficult the problem is.
Under the general law that has worked in two world wars young men who have said, "I am sorry, but I am not prepared to put my body between this country and the enemy," have faced prison, social ostracism and suffering. What is good enough in the general law is good enough for the medical profession, when all it means is that members of it will be relieved of a duty which would normally fall to others. Where there is a balance of doubt, normal compassion will apply; if an abortion is the sort of thing that a member of the profession does not want to take part in, he or she will be excused from doing it. There is no question about that.
I treat the speech of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) rather as a lingering filibustering exercise at the end of the proceedings on the Bill.
4.15 p.m.
Sir Myer Galpern: My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has fallen into an error which, with his experience, he should have been able to avoid. Had the Lords Amendment merely said that no doctor shall be under any duty, one might have been able to go some way with his argument. But the Lords Amendment does not specify doctors exclusively. It says:
"… no person shall be under any duty …"
In those circumstances, the House should try to envisage a situation in which a member of a medical, surgical or gynaecological team could become involved in legal or civil proceedings. A nurse who objects to taking part in an abortion operation might say to the surgeon, "On conscientious grounds I am not prepared to assist you in the operation," and if it were not possible speedily to obtain a substitute there might be danger to the patient's life.
If something goes wrong, the patient dies, and civil or criminal proceedings are brought against the person who refused to take part on conscientious grounds, that individual—not necessarily a doctor—will be called upon to justify in court the conscientious objection which led to the patient's death.

1751
My right hon. Friend referred to the tribunals which dealt with conscientious objection to military service. Many of us can recall genuine young pacifists who held solid, unshakeable views against participation in military service, but who, because they were inarticulate and unable to answer some of the trick questions, were deemed not to hold such conscientious objection and were assigned to carry out either their military duties or some other form of National Service. Therefore, we must deal with this problem logically, seriously and to the fullest possible extent in anticipation of a situation which could arise.
I can envisage a young nurse believing that she holds conscientious objections and refusing to take part in a legal abortion operation, feeling within her heart that she has a good answer, but finding herself before a court when something goes wrong and being unable to defend her position. She would be unable to establish that she holds genuine, deep-seated conscientious objections. Why has she to be punished? Must she not have felt that she had conscientious objections? She belongs to a calling which means service and sacrifice. Surely she must have held deep conscientious objections which she might be unable to establish if called upon to defend herself by a court or tribunal.
This is very dangerous, because it is not limited to doctors. It might concern the man wheeling the patient on a trolley to the operating theatre. Almost anybody could be involved. The provision does not specify doctors, but speaks of any person who:
"shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement".
I suggest that Scotland has shown people how to react in these circumstances. In Scotland procedure is simple. All that the individual has to do in court is to make a statement on oath that he or she holds a conscientious objection. That is sufficient to defend them in criminal or civil proceeding. Surely that enlightened method of Scottish law—it is not the only aspect of Scottish law which is enlightened—would meet the needs of young nurses. The sponsors say that there would be no difficulty in obtaining staff to carry out these operations without conscientious objection,
1752
but I believe that this provision is included because there may be insufficient people to carry them out.
The declaration under the Scottish legal system would meet the needs of the Bill. I hope that if there is no method of incorporating in the Bill such a declaration about conscientious objection the House will reject the Lords Amendment and accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas).
Mr. Harold Gurden: I should have thought that anything to avoid impingement on the freedoms and liberties of people would have appealed to hon. Members. We have surely seen enough lately of impingement upon liberties and freedom. Here we are concerned with the freedom of the choice of the individual who has to do the work. I should have thought that it would not be necessary to have any proof of conscientious objection. Choice should be enough. In a case of this nature and in such a Bill as this I do not see any need to take away the freedom of choice of the individual.
Apart from the feeling of hon. Members about the whole nature of the Bill, I should have thought that on this Amendment they would take a position purely on that ground.
Mr. Taverne: There is a point on which there may be slight confusion. We cannot consider this Amendment apart from the next one in the name of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). In respect of liability for criminal negligence under the law set out in the new Clause introduced by another place there is no defence on conscientious grounds. The question of conscientious grounds arises only in civil proceedings.
It is doubtful whether the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Chelmsford will have any effect, because it is by no means clear that deletion of the provision will shift the onus of proof to the plaintiff. The advantage of the Clause is that it makes it clear where the onus of proof should be. It is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of the person who wishes to put forward a conscientious objection. Therefore, it seems to me good sense to make it clear that the onus lies on him.

1753
I would mention, in passing, a letter which was written to The Times recently by the President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Chairman of the British Medical Association, and the Chairman of the British Medical Association Committee on Therapeutic Abortion, in which they said that they agreed with the previous views of another place on Clause 1. That is not in argument at the moment. But they also made clear that they were in full agreement with the amendments to Clause 4 which were made in another place and which are sought to be upheld by this House now.
Mr. David Steel: I am glad that in moving his Amendment the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) recognised the improvement in the main part of the conscience Clause made in another place, which was the result of considerable consultation.
I am sorry that the hon. Member feels it necessary to press for the removal of a subsection of the conscience Clause on which I thought he and I were agreed previously. A debate on this point took place on Report in this House, and then the hon. Member for Chelmsford voted with me to retain that part of the Clause. So a change of mind is not a prerogative confined to prelates in another place.
I would remind the hon. Member that the conscience Clause is not really necessary at all. The object of the Clause was to provide for obviously deep-seated feelings, not in the circumstances that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) was trying to outline, which are extremely hypothetical, but in circumstances where the young nurse might feel under pressure from medical people above her to participate in operations—to make clear that the person with a conscientious objection would have no legal obligation to participate.
As the Under-Secretary of State has rightly said, the advantage of the provision for dealing with emergency cases has nothing to do with the argument on this Clause.
Mr. Peter Mahon: It is a truism that conscience makes cowards of us all. It is no good hon. Members denying at this late stage that the consciences of nurses and doctors will
1754
not in future play a great part in the consequences of passing the Bill.
I believe that what is proposed will have a very unfortunate effect in regard to people's consciences, not only on matters apropos of abortion but on other medical matters of a very serious kind. For instance, the strain on conscience will not be a once-for-all strain. It will be a continual and repetitive strain. There may well come a time when nurses and doctors will find it very trying. There is always the temptation, as we know to our sorrow, for people to seek pastures new. Otherwise, we should not have the tremendous brain drain of nurses and doctors that we have. People will not continually battle with their consciences in these very serious medical matters.
4.30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We all appreciate how the hon. Gentleman feels on this subject, but we are not discussing whether there are conscientious objections to what is proposed in the Bill. We are discussing the very narrow issue of whether the onus of proof of a conscientious objection should be on the person himself. The hon. Gentleman must keep to the Amendment.
Mr. Mahon: Yes, Sir, but this in itself comprises a very grave difficulty for individual doctors and nurses. I would like to speak at length on this, but I will resist the temptation because I do not want it to be thought that, at this late stage, I am indulging in a filibuster. I believe that it is a good person who knows when he is beaten and in my public life I have always recognised that, in the main, the only good causes are the lost causes—and it would appear at this moment that our cause is lost.
Nevertheless, though we may be dead, we shall not lie down as the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has said. Here is a principle that is very valid. The cumulative effect of this situation will worry nurses and doctors. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has said, Catholic people will not have any difficulty; they will refuse to outrage their consciences and be damned to the consequences. But there will also be varying effects quite apart from the point of view of the onus of responsibility.

1755
If doctors and nurses are continually to dissociate themselves from what appears to be a necessary operation in order to save life, they will be asking themselves, "Is it worth while?" They will be at war with their consciences all the time and they may feel that perhaps it is really not worth while. This is the situation we have to take into consideration—very serious consideration indeed—and the country will be the poorer as a result of the sponsor of the Bill not being able to appreciate the tremendous difficulties which will ensue in future.
Mr. James Tinn: I cannot forbear to express my disappointment that the sponsor of the Bill has found it necessary to resist the Amendment to the Amendment. His point that the new Clause to some extent protects nurses is true, but that protection is surely considerably undermined and, in practice, completely destroyed by the reference to legal proceedings and the onus of proof.
Bearing in mind the pressures of one sort or another that will be exerted on a nurse, for instance, who is reluctant to take part in such an operation, it is surely necessary that she should be safeguarded from what to her will seem to be a threat of legal proceedings under which she will have the burden of proving and justifying something which surely more than anything else is difficult of justification—an act of conscience, of belief.
What a nation can do in time of war to conscientious objectors can perhaps be justified on grounds of the dire need of the nation, but the same justification can hardly be applied in peace time to the individual nurse facing difficulties like this in the course of her day-to-day work.
I am sorry that this matter of conscience appears to be so lightly treated in this instance by so many hon. Members who ordinarily would be its staunchest defenders. I sincerely urge the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) to accept the Amendment to the Amendment. If he does not, then I strongly urge hon. Members, including those who perhaps have supported the Bill in the past, to support it in the Lobby.
Sir J. Hobson: I cannot say that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford
1756
(Mr. St. John-Stevas) carried me with him when he first proposed the deletion of subsection (2). I do not think that this has anything to do with the burden of proof and I go along entirely with the view that those who want to assert a conscientious objection should have the burden of proving it laid on themselves, because the converse would be that the other side should prove that the person concerned did not have a conscientious objection and that is an impossible position to put a litigant in, either in criminal or in civil cases.
But subsection (2) itself is a substantial diminution of the conscience rights given by the first part of the proposed new Clause. On the person claiming a conscientious objection is to be placed the risk of judging whether a particular operation is necessary to save life or to prevent permanent injury. What persuaded me to change my mind was the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) and the example he quoted of the nurses. Subsection (1) of the new Clause would relieve nurses or doctors either of disciplinary proceedings for refusing to take part under their contract of service of a charge of mansslaughter—and criminal law might be involved here, despite what the Joint Under Secretary of State has said—
Mr. Taverne: On a point of order. I understood that we were not discussing subsection (2) at the moment.
Sir J. Hobson: I understood that the matter before the House was the proposal to leave out subsection (2) of the proposed new Clause 4. I understood that an Amendment to this effect had been moved.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I moved my Amendment to line 5 and we are discussing with it my Amendment to line 12. I did not move the Amendment to line 8, which would leave out subsection (2).
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I understand that at the moment we are discussing the Amendment to line 5 of the Lords Amendment.
Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I have listened with great care to all the arguments and I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon), from my own

1757
knowledge of the hospital service, that this will not have the effect on nurses and doctors to the extent that he suggests because already, from day to day, they have to make decisions of conscience in their service.
Mr. Peter Mahon: Would my hon. Friend be willing to say that people who conscientiously refrain from carrying out these operations would not suffer from the point of view of promotion in the eyes of the appointing authorities?
Mr. Pavitt: I think that that aspect is rather beside the point, which is where the onus of proof should rest. I am a pacifist and I know a little from personal experience of what happens before a conscientious objection tribunal and of all the difficulties and stresses entailed. Yet, in spite of the problems, I am certain that the Clause as it is put forward, putting the onus of proof on the conscientious objector, is the fairest course to pursue in the circumstances and responsibilities of medical care.
It is always difficult to make any judgment about someone else's conscience. Indeed, it is difficult to make one's own judgment of one's own conscience. It would be impossible to require anyone other than the person claiming conscientious objection to carry the onus of responsibility. I do not claim my conscience to be different from those of any of my colleagues. We all have consciences in a number of matters. Nevertheless, it is the thing that only the individual can sort out for himself or herself. When the final test comes one must be responsible for oneself and one's own actions. That must be so.
If the hon. Member for Chelsmford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) gets his way, it would lead to an impossible situation for the person involved, whether Catholic, agnostic or anything else, with obligations and responsibilities of such far reaching consequences of this sort. It is surely not possible to ask some other body than themselves to decide, without any onus on the person concerned, that the proposed conscience Clause is applicable.
Therefore, I hope that the House will fully support the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) and resist the points made by both my hon. Friend the Member for Cleve-
1758
land (Mr. Tinn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South and by the mover of the Amendment, the hon. Member for Chelmsford.
Mr. Angus Maude: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is easy to have a great deal of sympathy with those who have spoken of the difficulties arising out of conscience in this matter. It seems to me that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) is unquestionably right in saying that to try and place the burden of proof anywhere but on the conscientious objector would lead to an impossible situation. The position is difficult enough anyway. The Lords Amendment which we are discussing deals primarily—and I think that the Under-Secretary made this clear—with questions of contract and civil proceedings, but I doubt whether it can cover all of those in any case.
This is one of those cases where, with the best will in the world, to try to provide a perfect solution by Statute is impossible. For one thing, to a very great extent in any profession these matters are generally done on the basis of common sense, intelligence and human understanding. They have to be. Otherwise, I do not see how the thing works. It is true that where you have a contractual obligation on the interpretation of the contract must be justiciable at some stage. But how can it be if the burden of proof is to be placed on the employer?
Prima facie, it seems to me that for any employee of a hospital or of the National Health Service to refuse to undertake a job of this kind which would normally fall within his or her contractual obligations is a breach of duty. If they disobey an order I assume that it must be a breach of contract, and it cannot conceivably lead to any useful solution if the employer is then obliged to take legal proceedings to prove that the employee had no conscientious objections to the operation which he or she had refused to undertake.
If the only result is that the employee is dismissed, or fails to get a job on promotion, then presumably the employee has to take legal action either for wrongful dismissal or on some other civilian grounds. In any case, it can only be

1759
justiciable if the employee brings proof that he or she had a conscientious objection, and that is liable to come to the same thing in the end anyway.
Where we are dealing with civil cases for negligence I am not clear how it will operate, whether we have this Amendment or not. As I understand the Under-Secretary, he was doubtful about it, too. I do not see that whatever Parliament says in this Clause will have any effect where there is a civil action for negligence arising out of what my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) called an abortion situation.
The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) seemed to me to widen this very considerably when he raised the question of what the effect would be on the promotion prospects of somebody employed in a hospital or in the Health Service who had conscientious objections to this sort of operation. Again, I cannot see how Parliament can possibly legislate to provide for every possible case of this kind which comes up.
Who is to say whether this was the conclusive thing or not in somebody being passed over for promotion in the hospital service? Inevitably, somebody who is known on religious grounds to have consistent conscientious objections ever to taking part in anything of this kind will clearly be at a strong disadvantage for promotion to certain kinds of job in the hospital service.
Mr. Peter Mahon: By the same token, would the hon. Gentleman subscribe to the point of view that people who are suffering from these dilemmas day in day out might come to the conclusion that there is a great big world outside, that their services can be accepted anywhere, and that they would be much happier rendering those services in different spheres?
Mr. Maude: Yes. My point is that their sphere of usefulness is inevitably seriously circumscribed by their religious and conscientious convictions. It must be. It may well be that they will find an entirely different branch of the medical service or a different speciality within the medical service where their prospects will be greater, but inevitably they will
1760
be limited. How could it be otherwise? In this field, with the number of jobs involving a frequent liability to taking part in this sort of operation, it is clear that they will be debarred from certain types and spheres of promotion.
My point is that, regrettable as this may be, if one were trying to propose an entirely just and human solution, I cannot, for the life of me, see how Parliament can do anything about it. If any hon. Member can tell me how Parliament can provide against every loophole and every possible unfairness of this kind I would be delighted. However, it seems to me that the best we can do is to insert a conscience Clause, with the burden of proof where it inevitably must be, and realise that there will be a certain rough justice about it.
Mr. James A. Dunn: Mr. Deputy Speaker, in considering this Bill in Committee, when we were talking about another Amendment involving good faith, the question was asked: how do you qualify good faith? I ask the sponsor of the Bill: how do you qualify conscientious objections? It is easy for me as an individual, because I happen to follow a particular faith, to say that I have a conscientious objection, but it is most difficult for those who have no apparent indication of a particular faith to follow a conscientious objection and to establish this amongst the community.
I am more concerned with those who follow not only a faith, but a course of humanity. They may well feel that in an individual patient's interest it would be wrong for any reason to advise recourse to the provisions of this Bill. I am confused about what the situation would be if for any reason they had advised or advocated that abortion was the necessary remedy.
I am afraid that if this was tested in court on the basis of a civil action and if he had advocated that abortion was the remedy, he would be hard pressed to establish a conscientious objection, a medical objection or a professional objection. Therefore, I strongly support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas).
I realise that one always has to be prepared for the consequences of acting on one's conscience. In my life, political and

1761
otherwise, I have been prepared always to pay the price of my opinions, no matter what it might be, and I say with all humility that I bow to no man. My opinions are mine. I offer no apologies for them. I may be wrong. When evidence is produced to the contrary, I will admit that I am wrong. However, to prove a conscientious objection is difficult, and it would be alien to our way of thinking to ask any person to prove his innocence on the basis that there is a guilt complex founded upon our law.
There are many matters within our community which can be criticised. Many applications of law seem to be unfair to the individual. But written into the law is the protection that the Crown must always prove guilt against any individual.
My experience in these matters it little, but this must be one of the first occasions on which we have asked the individual to prove his innocence against any complaint of guilt, and it is completely wrong.
The House will know that I do not agree with the major portion of the Bill. I should be misleading hon. Members if I said otherwise. On medical grounds, I should be prepared to join with the sponsor in a demonstration in Trafalgar Square to say that this should be so. On social grounds, I would attack the right of the sponsor and any other hon. Member to oppose me, even though they may win in the end.
What I will not accept in this House or anywhere else is that I should not have conscientious reservations about applications of civil law. If I reserve that right to myself, I want it extended to everyone else, including nurses and doctors and whether they be Roman Catholics or bush Baptists. I do not care what they are. If a person says, "I cannot recommend this", that should be sufficient. In his Amendment, the hon. Member for Chelmsford virtually does that.
I take note of the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). I accept what he says. I have fought against this Bill, and I believe that I was right to. At the end of the day, a vote will be taken which may demonstrate that the majority of hon. Members do not believe that I was right. I cannot quarrel with that. It is the normal democratic process. However, if this House proposes to subject an indi-
1762
vidual to a process of law whereby the majority imposes upon him the obligation to establish not only that he believes that he is right but to establish his right with the majority, it asks for too much.
I am a Roman Catholic, and I make no apology to anyone for that. I am more concerned with those who have not my protection and my flag under which to stand. I ask them to be generous, knowing that these are difficulties and that it is hard to qualify and quantify good faith in opposing the Bill and that the same measurement applies to those with conscientious objections.
We have gone down in defeat. That is an established fact. It is the House which has decided that fact, and I make no complaint against the majority. However, the House should protect the rights of the individual. If it is accepted that it is very difficult for those who oppose the Bill to quantify their good faith, it must be accepted that it is equally difficult to quantify conscientious objections. That is the basis of the Amendment, and I hope that the House will accept it.
Mr. Richard Sharples: I find this extremely difficult, and I am not entirely persuaded by the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford on Avon (Mr. Maude). I do not see how the burden of proof can be otherwise than on the person claiming a conscientious objection.
The Under-Secretary said that this would not affect a case where there was an action for negligence. I did not understand his words, and I think that others of my hon. Friends did not.
With this Amendment, we are discussing subsection (3) of the Lords Amendment as it affects Scotland, and the House would be grateful for an explanation from the Under-Secretary of State for the Scottish Office, who I see is with us, of why the situation in Scotland is different. Is it because of the two witness procedure in the Scottish courts? Before we proceed further, I think that the House will he grateful for an explanation of why the burden of proof should not be the same in Scottish law.
Mr. Taverne: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may by way of interruption, make one point clear? The

1763
subsection deals only with civil proceedings. When I referred to an action for negligence, I was dealing with an action for criminal negligence, and that would not be affected by the Amendment.
Mr. Sharples: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. A. H. Macdonald: I wish to support the admirable arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern). He has gone right to the heart of the matter in his reference to a junior nurse.
When a junior nurse is assigned to duty in an operating theatre, she does not necessarily know what operations will be performed during her tour of duty. She could hardly stipulate beforehand that she should be notified of the operations likely to take place. Imagine her trying to suggest that she would not go on duty until she was told. The matron would tear her apart.
Junior nurses are on duty in operating theatres without necessarily knowing what operations will take place. It is easily understandable that they might find themselves on the point of taking part in abortion operations. It will be very difficult for them to step forward and say that they have objections. It is quite easy for surgeons to state their objections, but it is much harder for junior nurses who find themselves in this situation. It may be that they will be too embarrassed or too shy to come forward and state their views, and will take part in the operations.
5.0 p.m.
Dr. Winstanley: What does the hon. Gentleman think happens now in hospitals during the 150 or 200 operations which take place during a period of six months or so?
Mr. Macdonald: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would allow me to conclude my argument, so that he can see the point to which I am coming.
In the case to which I have referred, I think that the nurse taking part in the operation will resolve to be more careful in future, and will try to find out the kind of operation in which she is to take part, but if she is a nurse with no religious
1764
beliefs, as the Clause stands she will find herself in a trap from which she will never be able to extricate herself, because who will believe her if she tries to plead conscience, having already taken part in such an operation? This is the kind of situation, so ably illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston, with which the Clause does not deal, and it seems to me that it is the fundamental reason why the House should support the Amendment.
Mr. Dunn: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the point made by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) has no relation to the present situation, because one is unable to compare like with like under the provisions of the Bill? The hon. Gentleman may dispute this, but the Bill's provisions are wider than the existing law. A person may find himself in extreme difficulties. I am referring now to people in the lower strata of the medical profession, and—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot make a second speech.
Mr. Dunn: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not making a speech.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have said that the hon. Member cannot make a second speech.
Mr. Dunn: I am not making a speech, I am asking my hon. Friend a question. I am saying that one is unable to compare like with like because the Bill represents an extension of the present law.
Mr. Macdonald: I understood the intervention of the hon. Member for Cheadle, but it was not germane to the point that I was trying to make.
Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I do not think that we need apologise for taking time over this Clause. I do not think that there is any need to be reproachful, in view of the speed with which the rest of the business has been dealt with.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) takes the Amendment to a Division, I think that I shall join him, but I was not so impressed with those parts of his argument which referred to nurses and doctors in hospitals. As the hon. Member

1765
for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said, this type of operation is carried out now. Many commentators outside work on the basis that under the law as it stands it is not legal to have an operation for abortion. This is not what we are talking about in this Clause.
I believe that in practice the operation of the conscience Clause in relation to doctors and nurses will be based on common sense and ordinary medical practice. There will be certain doctors and nurses in each hospital whom it will be known—and who will not be ashamed to say so—are prepared to take part in these operations, but there is one aspect of the matter to which reference has not been made.
Unless I have totally misunderstood the provisions of the Clause, it is not limited to all operations for abortion. All the assumptions so far have been based on the viewpoint of a person who has a genuine conscientious objection to all operations for abortion, but I can foresee that this Clause may be called in aid for somebody who has a conscientious objection to a particular operation. This is the real point at issue. Under the new law—and it will be a much wider law, containing not only a definition of the medical provisions, but the wider provisions of Clause 1—a doctor or a nurse may conscientiously believe that the provisions of Clause 1 have not been adhered to, and may conscientiously wish not to take part in an operation.
In assisting the House, if I may put it without discourtesy, the Under-Secretary of State rather shrugged off the matter and said that in any case this referred only to civil proceedings, but in the situation which I have outlined, namely conscientious objection to one particular operation, civil proceedings might start to be of very real import. The Minister had great legal experience before he became a Member of the Government, and I put it to him that if he were advising a medical practitioner faced with the hazard of proceedings of the kind which I have outlined, he would be bound to advise that in the subsequent proceedings it would be necessary to place on the doctor the burden of proving his conscientious objection. I am sure that members of the medical profession would regard such a step with considerable apprehension.
1766
As a practitioner on the junior side of the legal profession I think that I see more of this aspect of the matter than is seen by those on the senior side. I know that many of these civil proceedings are based on threat, and sometimes on bluff. I think that it will be very difficult for someone like myself to advise a doctor—or a nurse—who is in jeopardy as a result of a particular operation if the proviso as drawn remains in the Bill.
The House, in conformity with its normal traditions, has tried to be scrupulously careful to protect minority interests. It has done so because the Bill, for a minority of opinion, apparently, represents an operation which deals with life. This is apparently a minority view, but the House understands that it is a sincerely held view, and that is why these provisos are in this Measure.
It could well be that within the lifetime of many hon. Members present another Bill, or other Bills, dealing with life will have to be considered, and what we are talking about in this proviso could be of great importance in future legislation. Where there is a balance of difficulty—and balance of difficulty there certainly is—I come down in favour of the person, whatever his minority belief, who holds that belief. It is for this reason that I shall support my hon. Friend, and why I hope that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) will reconsider the matter.
Mr. Victor Goodhew: I do not propose to detain the House for very long, but I think that insufficient attention has been paid to the fact that after the Bill is passed conditions will not be the same as they are now. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) to ask what we think happens in hospitals today. The position will be very different in the future. After all, the instinct of people in the medical profession, be they nurses or doctors—and their whole training is directed to this—is to preserve life.
In the past they have been mainly cases where there has been a question of aborting to save the life of a pregnant woman. In these cases there is no clash with their conscience in helping in such an operation. But the Bill includes abortion for social reasons, which brings in an entirely

1767
different aspect. Many people who have been trained all their lives and who have a natural instinct and desire to preserve life will find themselves taking part in what they believe to be the destruction of life.
We must bear this point in mind. For that reason I shall support my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) if he divides the House. In the House today considerable intolerance has been expressed of the view of the minority by those in the majority. The first speech made after my hon. Friend moved the Amendment suggested that he was merely filibustering. Is this the sort of person who will face the conscientious objector who refuses to take part in an abortion? Will a person so refusing be accused merely of being difficult? Are the people who will face him going to be so lacking in sympathy as have some of the Members who have spoken today? For this reason hon. Members should think very carefully about the Amendment. I hope that the sponsors of the Bill may still feel able to accept it.
In my view there is a danger of too little sympathy being expressed with the conscientious objector, a lack of understanding of his faith, and a lack of preparednes to accept it. This being so, since the Bill will create an entirely different aspect in respect of abortion, in that it will introduce social and not merely medical reasons, I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I was asked by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) to explain the purport of subsection (3) of the proposed new Clause. I am glad to do this because it deals with a difficulty to which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) drew attention on Report.
The position is that in Scottish law—unlike the law of England and Wales—corroborative evidence is required in civil proceedings. That being so, under the Clause in original form the evidence of more than one person would have been necessary to satisfy the proviso about the burden of proof of conscientious objection in subsection (1) of the proposed new Clause. It would have meant that if a doctor claimed to have a conscientious
1768
objection, his own evidence would have been insufficient, in Scottish civil proceedings, to discharge the burden of proof. No matter how credible a witness he may have appeared to the court, he would have needed to produce evidence of his conscientious objection from some other source. One can understand the extreme difficulty in which a conscientious objector might thereby be placed.
The new subsection therefore provides that in civil proceedings in Scotland the conscientious objector will be placed on the same basis as the conscientious objector in England and Wales. We have therefore provided additional protection in Scottish civil proceedings, which I hope the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), among others, will welcome.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), who was, perhaps, founding his argument on a misreading of the subsection, a mere statement by the objector that he had a conscientious objection would not provide proof which the court would accept. That would be something for the court to determine in the light of its estimate of the credibility of the evidence given by the witness and by other people. But this provision will allow the objector in Scotland to have a protection which, under the present law of corroboration, he does not have. I hope that the House will welcome the provision.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. Tim Fortescue: I have the deepest respect for all the conscientious speeches made this afternoon, and I shall be supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) if there is a Division. Nevertheless, much of the discussion that we have been having has been hypothetical. Hypothetical cases have been quoted, because they are in the future.
What will happen when the Bill becomes law? The problem will be solved, as so many are to-day, by the printing of a form. For all I know, the forms have already been printed. Every hospital administrator, matron, and everyone in charge of hospitals where abortions will he performed legally will have to ensure

1769
that on the staff there are sufficient nurses, orderlies and other people who do not have a conscientious objection to participating in an abortion, so that circumstances never arise in which, when an abortion is to be performed legally, there are not enough people to carry it out.
It is, therefore, inevitable that every member of the staff who is in the National Health Service will immediately be asked whether or not he or she wishes to make a declaration that he or she has a conscientious objection to taking part in an abortion. This will be done in respect of present members and also those who join the Service in the future. It is inevitable that such a statement, made well in advance of the problem arising where participation is requested, will be the strongest possible evidence in any court of law when the burden of proof is sought to be established. Therefore, some, if not most, of our discussion to-day on this important point of conscience has been hypothetical rather than real.
Sir Knox Cunningham: I should like to have clarification on one point. I should like to know why it has been stated that the proposed new Clause will not include criminal liability. I understand that it includes civil liability, but the wording is:
"statutory or other legal requirement"
and that surely includes criminal negligence, and might involve a question of manslaughter. Will the Minister say why he stated that that is not the case?
Mr. Taverne: With the leave of the House, I should like to answer that point. At the moment we are discussing an Amendment to subsection (1) and subsection (3) of the proposed new Clause "A". The part which deals with criminal liability is contained in subsection (2), which we are not now discussing. As the Clause stands, in the case of crimina prosecutions no question of conscientious objection would be advanced. Therefore, all that we are discussing is the question of the onus of proof in civil proceedings.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: In my reply—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has no right of reply in a debate on a Lords Amendment.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: May I have the leave of the House to reply?
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Leave is refused.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment.
The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 94.

Division No. 496.]

AYES

[5.20 p.m.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Forrester, John

Allen, Scholefield

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Fowler, Gerry

Archer, Peter

Crawshaw, Richard

Freeson, Reginald

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Crouch, David

Gardner, Tony

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Dalyell, Tam

Garrett, W. E.

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn, P. C.

Balniel, Lord

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Gregory, Arnold

Barnett, Joel

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Gresham Cooke, R.

Beaney, Alan

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Dell, Edmund

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Bessell, Peter

Dewar, Donald

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Binns, John

Dickens, James

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Bishop, E. S.

Dobson, Ray

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Blackburn, F.

Doig, Peter

Hamling, William

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Dunnett, Jack

Harper, Joseph

Booth, Albert

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Haseldine, Norman

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

Heffer, Eric S.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Hooley, Frank

Brewis, John

Ellis, John

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Brooks, Edwin

Ennals, David

Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Ensor, David

Howell, David (Guildford)

Buchan, Norman

Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

Howie, W.

Cant, R. B.

Faulds, Andrew

Huckfield, Leslie

Carmichael, Neil

Finch, Harold

Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

Channon, H. P. G.

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Chapman, Donald

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Coleman, Donald

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Hunt, John

Hynd, John

Millan, Bruce

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Iremonger, T. L.

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Sheldon, Robert

Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c' tle-u-Tyne)

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Mitchell, R. c (S'th'pton, Test)

Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N. E.)

Janner, Sir Barnett

Molloy, William

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Moonman, Eric

Sinclair, Sir George

Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Slater, Joseph

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Smith, John

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Snow, Julian

Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

Moyle, Roland

Spriggs, Leslie

Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grlnstead)

Murray, Albert

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Neal, Harold

Stodart, Anthony

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, west)

Neave Airey

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Judd, Frank

Newens, Stan

Swain, Thomas

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Orbach, Maurice

Taverne, Dick

Lane, David

Orme, Stanley

Varley, Eric G.

Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

Vickers, Dame Joan

Lee, John (Reading)

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Lestor, Miss Joan

Palmer, Arthur

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Walker, Harold (Doncaeter)

Lipton, Marcus

Pardoe, John

Wallace, George

Loughlin, Charles

Park, Trevor

Weitzman, David

Lubbock, Eric

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Wellbeloved, James

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Pavitt, Laurence

Whitlock, William

MacDermot, Niall

Pentland, Norman

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Mackie, John

Probert, Arthur

Winnick, David

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Mapp, Charles

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Woof, Robert

Marquand, David

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Younger, Hn. George

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Roberts, Gwllym (Bedfordshire, S.)

Maude, Angus

Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St. P'c' as)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Maxwell, Robert

Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

Mr. Christopher Price and

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Sharpies, Richard

Dr. M. P. Winstanley.

NOES

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Grant-Ferris, R.

O'Malley, Brian

Alldritt, Walter

Grieve, Percy

Onslow, Cranley

Baker, W. H. K.

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Percival, Ian

Bell, Ronald

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Bence, Cyril

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Pym, Francis

Biggs-Davison, John

Hastings, Stephen

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Black, Sir Cyril

Hiley, Joseph

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Blaker, Peter

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Bromley-Davenport. Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Russell, Sir Ronald

Bullus, Sir Eric

Kitson, Timothy

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Cooke, Robert

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Cordle, John

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Small, William

Cutten, Mrs. Alice

McBride, Neil

Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

Currie, G. B. H.

Macdonald, A. H.

Teeling, Sir William

Dance, James

McGuire, Michael

Tinn, James

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Dempsey, James

McMaster, Stanley

Wall, Patrick

Doughty, Charles

McNamara, J. Kevin

Ward, Dame Irene

Dunn, James A.

Maddan, Martin

Weatherill, Bernard

Eden, Sir John

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Elliott, R. W. (N'c' tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

Marten, Neil

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Errington, Sir Eric

Mawby, Ray

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Fortescue, Tim

Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

Wofrige-Gordon, Patrick

Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford & Stone)

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Wright, Esmond

Galpern, Sir Myer

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Gibson-Watt, David

Monro, Hector

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

More, Jasper

Mr. Harold Gurden and

Goodhew, Victor

Murton, Oscar

Sir Knox Cunningham.

Gower, Raymond

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 8, to leave out subsection (2).
The effect of the Amendment would be that while leaving the main part of the conscience Clause intact, it would remove the rather grave and important limitations that were placed upon the
1772
operation of the conscience Clause by the other place. I hope that there will be no further talk of filibustering. The debate on the previous Amendment was extremely useful and the debate on this one will, I hope, be equally instructive.
The extent of operation of the Clause is extremely important. We all attach great importance to conscience in this

1773
matter. The proviso has the effect of substantially whittling down the rights of conscience which are conferred by the other parts of the Clause.
Where the conscience Clause is likely to arise in practice is precisely where there is some kind of conflict between medical treatment, on the one hand, and conscientious objection to the carrying out of that medical treatment, on the other hand.
5.30 p.m.
In other cases, where a right of conscientious objection is exercised, it is unlikely practically to come before the courts. It is in this sort of case, where there is this sort of conflict, that there might be a dispute and where the law is extremely relevant. I would like to make clear what I think is the moral duty of a doctor when faced with this particular dilemma, his conscience saying that this treatment is illegitimate, and his medical knowledge saying that the treatment is necessary.
In those circumstances, his moral duty would be to direct his patient to another doctor. He would have to apprise her of the difficulty, and it would not be his moral duty to impose his particular view on his patient. I would have thought that that would have been accepted in medical ethics. I am not saying that it would be the moral duty of the doctor in those circumstances to find another doctor who would carry out the operation. That would be expecting too much. But he would be under a moral and a legal duty to inform his patient of his own conscientious objection.
Having done that he would, or should, free himself from any further legal liability. That would not be the case if this subsection remains. As it stands, in the very case when he would want to avail himself of his conscience, and not be exposed to legal attack this is precisely when the protection afforded by the first part of this Clause is removed so that he is then open to civil action for negligence, which might be very serious for him.
There is a further objection which is of considerable importance, and that is the confusion which will be created by the inclusion of this subsection. One has to remember that when one comes down to these cases in practice, as we
1774
were reminded in a very cogent speech earlier by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), one is not considering this as a matter of legal nicety. One is faced with doctors and even more, nurses in operating theatres, who have to take an immediate decision and need to know what their rights are. If one is to have a conscience Clause which will help them and will be effective, almost the most important requirement is that it should be clear. It should not leave a very large penumbra of doubt as to whether it operates.
Doubt is exactly what this subsection of the new conscience Clause creates. It says that the protection is not to apply if the treatment
"… is necessary to save the life …"
"That is clear enough. But it goes on:
"… to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of a pregnant woman."
This makes it almost impossible for a doctor, let alone a nurse, to take a decision with any certainty of what the legal effects of their action will be. It is only if these two adjectives, "grave" and "permanent" are fulfilled, that the protection of the Clause is excluded.
Suppose that it was a permanent injury which was not grave, or a grave injury which was not permanent. In that case the Clause would apply, and this exception would not. There is a situation of confusion in the minds of many people who are looking to the law for clarity. They are looking to the law for a clear guidance on principle, and the conscience Clause on the whole—we differ about the question of the burden of proof—gives clear guidance that if there is conscientious objection, then the doctor and the nurse need not be afraid of exercising their conscientious right.
With this subsection, they would be reduced to a state of utter confusion. In practice it would be quite ineffective. What this subsection does is to take away, in practice, the rights of conscience that is afforded in theory. We must look at the practical effect of this in the operating theatre, and not think of this as a purely legal, technical problem. This Clause would be greatly improved by the removal of the subsection. I hope that the sponsor of the Bill will agree to this.

1775
In the course of a previous speech he said that there had been consultations on the redrafting of the Clause. There were certainly no consultations with me. I was never asked whether the change of wording was acceptable to me.[An HON. MEMBER: "Why should there be consultations?"] In this context, because the hon. Member reproached me earlier for moving these Amendments, saying that I was going away from an agreement that we had reached, saying that there was consultation.
Mr. David Steel Mr. David Steel indicated dissent.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: We reached agreement about a completely different Clause, and any agreement reached on that Clause was abrogated by the appearance of a completely new Clause. I did inform the hon. Member privately of my intention to move these Amendments before I put them down.
Mr. Steel: I would not want any misunderstanding to exist between us. I did not reproach the hon. Gentleman for moving Amendments contrary to an agreement. What I did say was that the Lords Amendment discussed was agreed between us at an earlier stage. I think that that is true because he voted for it.
Dr. Winstanley: If I may reply briefly on behalf of the sponsors at this point, I have to say that the sponsors would be wholly against the deletion of this subsection. We believe that if it were deleted it would result in a very serious change in the present position. I know that we have had argument already on both sides of the House about what is the present position. There can be no doubt that the present position with regard to responsibility for operations of this kind is precisely as outlined in this subsection.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) seeks to create a new position, but not in relation to new circumstances. This subsection relates to the old circumstances, not the new circumstances about which there has been so much argument during the passage of the Bill in general. The sponsors of the Bill fully recognise that there are immense difficulties of conscience for individuals in a mixed society.
In a society in which people have different religions and different points of view, and hold different attitudes con-
1776
scientiously, there must clearly be difficulties, and from time to time conflicts will arise, as between the conscience of the doctor or nurse and the conscience of the patient with whom the doctor or the nurse is in association. One recognises this. This has been recognised for a long time.
Hon. Members who say that these are all new problems are wrong because this conflict of conscience arises almost daily. One regularly sees the conscientious Roman Catholic doctor taking certain necessary steps to discharge his responsibilities both towards his own conscience and towards his patient. He is right and proper in taking that action and this is precisely what should happen. The sponsors of the Bill do not wish to place any impediment in the way of any person opting out of a procedure which he does not, in conscience, desire to follow, but we do not want to relieve him of an overall responsibility to his patient.
There are many ways in which this can be discharged; normally, by reference to another practitioner, and this happens daily. A Catholic doctor will say, "I cannot deal with this. You must go to my colleague". Or, in an emergency, he will say, "I cannot deal with this. I will immediately get a colleague to deal with it."
However, the doctor who allows his conscience to stand in the way of the performance of a necessary lifesaving procedure—or even a procedure which is saving damage to mental or physical health—cannot be allowed to opt out of any possible consequences which may arise from his action. This must be provided for in a mixed community. If we all had the same attitudes and viewpoints there would be no difficulty, but we must make it clear that, fundamentally, in the practice of medicine, it is the conscience of the patient which must operate in this sphere, rather than the conscience of the individual doctor or nurse—save that every opportunity is given to the individual doctor or nurse to opt out, provided they do not opt out of this overall responsibility towards the patient.
This is the view of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. This view has been expressed strongly. These bodies and Catholic doctors, too, have

1777
said that they would have grave doubts about the removal of this liability.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: But there must be some ethical limitations on medical treatment. The duty of the doctor cannot be the curing of the patient at any price. That curative process must be carried on within an ethical framework.
Dr. Winstanley: I agree, but we are not talking about something which is not ethical. I agree that doctors, including Catholic doctors, have a responsibility towards patients which necessitates them taking a course of action different from that which they might take with a Catholic patient. I accept that. Other people have views of conscience in this matter, and I am using the Catholic example because it is the most common.
It should not be assumed that this means that, in any situation, a person must co-operate and take part in the operation. It means a clear recognition of the responsibility of the individual towards the patient, irrespective of his conscientious objections. One hopes that he will be able to discharge his responsibility to both—and, in my experience, this is so—but to remove the subsection would he to say that he is no longer responsible towards the former, and that sort of removal would result in a position very much worse than it is now and would be a total alteration in the attitude towards legal responsibility which the profession now has.
5.45 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) spoke with sympathy and knowledge of those practising medicine and referred to this being a mixed society. That is a good description of a community with different views. However, from the practical point of view, he will agree that when a question of dire emergency arises, any doctor, of whatever religious persuasion, will operate, whatever his personal feelings, and this goes without question. There is personal conscience, the Hippocratic Oath and every-think else.
Nevertheless, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) that, having discussed conscience, the danger of the subsection as drafted is its limitation on conscience, making it more difficult for the individual
1778
to opt out and, thereby, achieving a theoretical situation which would not be to the advantage of the medical profession. Left as it is—as it was in the Bill originally—we would be relying on the good sense of the medical profession, even in an emergency, because we would be saying that these operations applied to people with no conscience in the matter or fear of carrying them out. I must, therefore, support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford for the deletion of the subsection.
Mr. Maude: I found no great difficulty in coming to a conclusion about the last Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) but I find this one more difficult because there is some force in the remarks he made and in the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser).
I could accept that the subsection in the Lords Amendment was reasonable if it were merely a restatement of the existing law, but I am in some difficulty in accepting this and I hope that the Minister will clear this point up beyond doubt. It seems that it cannot merely be a restatement of the existing law when the law is being significantly changed by the rest of the Bill.
Up till the passing of this Measure the legal position has been that it was illegal to take part in an abortion, although it was a defence to a criminal charge to say that taking part in the operation was necessary to preserve the life of the patient. I understand that since the Bourne case that has been the position; that it is illegal to take part in an abortion but that if a practitioner is prosecuted he may bring as a defence the fact that it was necessary to save the life of the patient. The Clause therefore significantly changes the law and one cannot justify subsection (2) of the Lords Amendment on the ground that it is simply a restatement of the existing law, for the existing law is totally different in its purpose and background.
Dr. Winstanley: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the learned judge, in his judgment in the Bourne case, said that were the doctor to refuse to terminate a pregnancy in those circumstances he might well be laying himself open to civil or criminal proceedings.
Mr. Maude: A judicial obiter dicta saying that a practitioner might well have laid himself open is not a clear statement of the law as it exists at present. I would not have thought that there was any doubt that we are changing the law—the whole background to the law to which this subsection will apply—through Clause 1, which is nearly through Parliament. To say that; totally new legal situation is simply a restatement of the existing law is meaningless. Indeed, we need a new set of laws. I cannot agree that the new subsection (2) provides a satisfactory resolution of the problem which my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford has raised.
By the main Clause of this Bill we are changing the whole direction and balance of the law, so that I feel that what the existing legal position is in respect of people having a conscientious objection to terminating pregnancy is irrelevant. We have to find a new statement of the law that will satisfy the doubts that have been expressed today. I am a little doubtful whether the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone are not of some substance. I hope that the House will consider them very carefully; and that the Under Secretary will put us right on the legal position.
Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I have not troubled either the House or the Committee at any stage heretofore, and I have by vote or arrangement with hon. Friends consistently supported the sponsors of the Bill in principle and detail. I have discussed the profound moral difficulties to which the Bill has given rise with my constituents, particularly with Roman Catholics, and many nurses who are not Roman Catholics but who object to the principle of the Bill. I have said to them that I could meet them—without rehearsing all the difficult argument—on one point and on one point only, which was that conscientious objection should be given the maximum possible protection.
Having listened to the debate on this Clause, I think that the balance of the argument is in favour of my hon. Friend, and I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) that it is better to vote against this Amendment if one wants to keep the gate of
1780
conscience as widely open as possible. So, for the first time, I shall be, as it might seem, moving away from the position of consistent support I have given to the sponsors in view of the assurance I have given to constituents that they should be given maximum protection in this respect.
Mr. Taverne: I should like, first to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude). As I understand the law, and as the Government see the legal point, I strongly support what the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) has said. Under the existing law there is a duty to preserve life. There may be a duty on a doctor in certain circumstances to carry out an operation of abortion, and under the existing law a doctor may be liable to proceedings, not only for civil negligence but for criminal negligence if he fails to terminate a pregnancy where there is a danger to life. Therefore, the effect of the Amendment would be to remove an existing liability and an existing duty.
The reason for the Amendment made in another place was that, as it seemed before, the previous Clause 4 was going too far, and that any existing liability where an abortion was necessary to save life or prevent grave harm should be preserved. For that reason I would interpret the law as stated, and support the remarks as made by the hon. Member for Cheadle.
Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment, put and agreed to.
Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7.—(SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT.)
Lords Amendment No. 8: In page 4, line 15, leave out "Medical Termination of Pregnancy" and insert "Abortion".
Mr. David Steel: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a peculiar Amendment, to change the Title of the Bill from "Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill" to "Abortion Bill." I must confess to some personal sadness at seeing something with which I have lived for 18 months having its title changed, but I understand the reasons for it. It is as

1781
well to remember that the start of this effort to reform the law of abortion was not begun here by me or anyone else but, at any rate in recent times, begun successfully by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin in another place, and the other place passed two Bills, one in the 1964 and one in the 1966 Parliament under the Title "Abortion Bill". It was therefore natural that their Lordships should prefer their original Title.
One technical and, I suppose, sound reason why their Lordships' Title should be preferred was made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, in the course of the debate on this Amendment when he pointed out that the term "termination of pregnancy" can be and is used up to full term, whereas the Bill does not provide for the termination of pregnancy in the case of a viable foetus. The Title is therefore technically correct and, as their Lordships prefer it, I think that we ought to agree.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I express my agreement with the sponsor of the Bill on this issue. These are the last words I intend to speak on this Bill, and I am glad that they can be at least in formal agreement, in the philosophical sense, with the sponsor of the Bill. It is as well to call a spade a spade. If this is a Bill for abortion, why not call
1782
it so? Further, I approve the change in the Title on stylistic grounds, because I always think it better, if one can, to make one word do the work of four. This is an improvement in the Title of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords Amendment No. 9: In page 4, line 16, at end insert:
"() This Act shall come into force on the expiration of the period of six months beginning with the date on which it is passed."
Mr. David Steel: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Since this is the last time that I shall speak on the Bill I join with the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas) in hoping that he will not be speaking about the Bill. I think that he restrained himself to speaking within this House; it will surprise me if he never speaks about it again.
This Amendment allows six months to pass from the date of the Royal Assent before the Act comes into operation in order that the Ministry of Health may have time to make the various regulations prescribed in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.

AGRICULTURE
5.57 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I beg to move,
That the Farm Structure (Payments to Out-goers) Scheme 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 26th July, be approved.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I suggest that it will be for the convenience of the House if this scheme is discussed along with the Farm Amalgamations and Boundary Adjustments Scheme 1967, since the two are complementary.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): If the House agrees, I think that it would be convenient for the two Motions to be taken together.
Mr. Buchan: The main aim of these schemes is twofold: first, to offer incentives to farmers who wish to increase the size of their farms and thus get a better living and make more efficient use of buildings and equipment; second, to encourage farmers to give up for such amalgamations small farms from which it is not really possible to make a satisfactory living.
I want, however, to repeat what has been said often enough before; that these schemes are entirely voluntary, to be made use of by those who so wish and not to be forced on those who want to remain where and as they are.
The Amalgamation Scheme is made under Section 26 of the Agriculture Act and runs for seven years. It applies to the whole of the United Kingdom and provides for grants of 50 per cent. of the cost of a wide range of expenses arising from the amalgamation of small farms and the reshaping of farms to give more satisfactory boundaries.
To qualify for grant, an amalgamation must combine an uncommercial unit with other land so as to form a commercial unit or, exceptionally, an intermediate unit. These categories of unit are defined in the definitions of "commercial unit", "full time employment" and "intermediate unit", in paragraph 2 of the Scheme in terms of the number of days in the year for which they can provide employment, assuming that a system of
1784
husbandry suitable for the district is followed and that the greater part of the feed for the livestock is produced on the farm.
Thus, a commercial unit is one which can provide full-time employment for the farmer and at least one other man, that is to say 600 days in a year; an intermediate unit is one capable of providing full-time employment for the occupier himself, that is to say 275 days in the year; and an uncommercial unit is anything which is not commercial so that it includes an intermediate unit. Thus, an intermediate unit can either be formed by the amalgamation of smaller pieces of land; or it can be joined with other land so as to form a larger intermediate or a commercial unit.
In making these calculations we shall apply the current list of standard man-days as set out in the Small Farm (Business Management) Schemes. We have not, however, written these into the Amalgamations Scheme since we want to keep it as flexible as possible.
Paragraph 3 of the scheme lays down certain restrictions on the amalgamations to which it applies. In the first place, amalgamations involving land which has reverted from being in single ownership and occupation with other land since 4th August, 1965—the date these proposals were first announced—are excluded unless the reversion is clearly in consequence of death or bankruptcy or other good cause. Obviously we should not pay grant where land has deliberately been fragmented from other land since the relevant date in order to attract grant.
Secondly, the purpose of the scheme is to bring about amalgamation of farms from which someone is trying to derive a full-time living but which are not really suitable for that purpose. It is not intended to grant-aid the amalgamation of part-time hobby farms and therefore uncommercial units of less than 100 standard man-days are excluded.
Paragraph 5 sets out certain tests with which the proposals must comply in order to qualify for grant. There is a "prudent owner" and "reasonable cost" test similar to those of the Farm Improvement Scheme; and the resulting unit must be such as can effectively be farmed as

1785
an agricultural unit. These tests are intended to prevent the creation of overlarge and unwieldy units. In addition certain rules are laid down for amalgamations resulting in intermediate units, the object being to see that the unit is suitable for further enlargement if and when an opportunity arises to proceed to full commercial size.
Paragraph 6 contains rules for boundary adjustments. To qualify under the scheme, an adjustment must make at least one unit more suitable for agriculture. It must also satisfy prudence and reasonable cost tests similar to those for amalgamations.
Paragraph 7 provides for grants on various kinds of work or improvement of which details are set out in the schedule. As hon. Members will see, a very wide range of items is covered. The works or improvements must, however, be necessary or desirable as a consequence of the amalgamation.
I think that the remaining provisions of this scheme are reasonably self-explanatory so I should now like to turn to the Outgoers Scheme. This scheme is made under Section 27 of the Agriculture Act 1967, applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, and will run for seven years. It provides for the payment of lump sums or annuities to persons giving up occupation of uncommercial units so that they can be incorporated in amalgamations or sold to the Minister or to a rural development board. Both owner-occupiers and tenants are eligible, but tenants must hold tenancies of at least from year to year. The minimum size of unit in respect of which an outgoing payment may be made is one providing work for at least 100 days in the year.
Paragraphs 4 to 6 of the scheme lay down various rules as to the occupation of the unit relinquished. Clearly we should not pay grants to people who have deliberately bought small farms since 4th August, 1965 in order to get such grants. Therefore the effect of paragraphs 4(1) and 5 is that the applicant must either himself have occupied the unit continuously since that date; or have acquired it by inheritance or transfer within the family.
Paragraph 4(2) provides that he must not have been entitled in the meantime
1786
to occupy sufficient land to constitute a commercial unit. This does not apply where the unit has been made uncommercial through no fault of his, as for instance, as a result of notice to quit by his landlord. Paragraph 6, however, has the effect that the unit may have increased in size since 4th August, 1965 provided there was a nucleus of at least 100 man-days at that date. We have no wish to penalise people who have already enlarged small units at their own expense.
The second main test of the scheme is the income test laid down in paragraph 7. We have always made it clear that the outgoers grant is intended for those mainly dependent for their livelihood on the farms they want to give up. Therefore, in everyday language, we provide that a farmer may qualify under this scheme if the annual income of himself and his wife from sources other than fanning is less than £400.
In such cases it does not matter how much or little he gets from the farm. If, however, the joint income from sources other than the farm is over £400, the farm must provide at least £3 for every £1 of the excess of other income over £400. This, we feel, will ensure that the payments do not go to those to whom farming is not a chief source of income.
The rates of payment are set out in paragraph 8, namely, a lump sum of £1,000 plus £10 per eligible acre; or an annuity of £200 plus 15s. per eligible acre. These differ from the rates proposed in the White Paper, which were a lump sum of £500 plus £15 per acre; or an annuity of £100 plus £1 per acre. In the light of comments made by hon. Members during passage of the Bill, we have felt it right to weight the scales more heavily in favour of the smaller farms and less in favour of the larger ones.
Thus, the fixed element in each payment has been doubled and the acreage element reduced. Furthermore, the first 10 acres on the farm are disregarded and the total of eligible acres must not exceed 100, so that the maximum lump sum payment will be £2,000 and the maximum annuity £275. The effect of all this is that up to 80 acres the new payments will be higher than the old; above that, they will be less.

1787
For the benefit, perhaps particularly of Scottish hon. Members, I should draw attention to paragraph 8(2)(c), which has the effect of deeming six acres of rough grazings to be equivalent to one eligible acre of crops or grass. It would obviously be wrong to pay as much for an acre of rough grazing on a mountain as for an acre of good arable land. The equation is a rough and ready one, but we think it will do broad justice.
Paragraph 3(1) empowers the Minister to impose conditions in paying grant. One of the conditions we propose to make is that the recipient of an annuity and his wife must give up farming. We feel that this is reasonable as the idea of the annuity is to ease the farmer's retirement so he must not expect to get the grant and go back into farming. We realise, however, that a retired farmer may wish to grow crops on a small scale or keep a few animals as a hobby or to meet family needs. As long as such activities occupy him for less than 100 standard man-days he will be permitted to do this. Outgoers who take the lump sum will not be subject to any condition.
We are hopeful that these measures will bring about a lasting improvement both in the structure and the efficiency of the agricultural industry. At the same time they will make life easier for the small farmer who wishes to give up the often unrewarding struggle of making a living from the land.
I invite the House to approve these Schemes.
6.8 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Stodart: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary, not for the first time, on giving us an extremely lucid exposition of these two Schemes. They are the outcome of a fairly lengthy discussion, including two Second Reading debates, an animated and a very constructive discussion in Committee, and—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will remember it—a somewhat marathon Report stage.
We now have the detailed proposals of what the Minister described in the first Second Reading debate as the second major purpose of the Bill. In the second Second Reading debate, he defined its purpose of being to accelerate the process of voluntary amalgamations which
1788
were already taking place by private initiative. That process has indeed been taking place. The Minister has told us that there are 100,000 full-time farms. My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) has said that the total number of holdings of less than 50 acres has dropped by 50,000 in the last 12 years. In Scotland, the total number of what are described as agricultural units is down by 5,000 in the course of the last four years. It is clear that the private initiative referred to by the Minister has been at work.
What effect will these Schemes have? Are the Government entirely clear about what they want to achieve? Without doubt, the nub of what we are discussing lies in paragraph 8 of the Farm Structure Scheme, consisting of the amounts to be paid. Unless these grants are right, the whole project, which is one which I think all parties broadly support, will fail. The grants must stimilate and accelerate the existing process or they will be a not inexpensive burden on public funds. They must not be so great as to cause a mass exit from small farms and distort the whole balance of farming in a way which would be disastrous.
There have been many sentimental utterances and much cosy chat down the years about what are called family farms. Books have been written on the subject, many very good ones which have become best sellers. It is important that we avoid a situation whereby there is a dwindling number of small farms at the foot of what has always been known as the farming ladder, some mammoth undertakings at the top, the capital demands of which will keep the genuine farmer out, and very few rungs on the ladder between the small and the great.
I have expressed doubt about whether the Government are entirely clear on the purpose of the grants. It is very important that they should be. I say this because my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham in the first Second Reading debate asked the Minister whether these grants were really meant to attract farmers out or were meant to cushion those who were intending to retire anyway. The Secretary of State for Scotland replied briefly, and I thought enigmatically, "Both". In Committee,

1789
the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that these payments were to be regarded as a modest incentive, which was different. He said nothing about the cushion.
There is little doubt that the proposals which appeared originally in the White Paper were too low to provide that incentive. They were really supplements to a retirement pension and very little else. It was to be £100 a year, plus £1 an acre. That meant £150 on a 50-acre farm, or virtually £3 a week. Now we have got a change to £200, plus 15s. an acre, which makes £240 on a 50-acre farm, or 94s. a week. This may be about right, but it is extremely important to be sure, because there is nothing to go on. It is not to be cast lightly aside that the National Farmers' Union has described these rates as "significant", but the union says, too, that there are no reliable figures on which to judge the likely success of the scheme.
What if the rates are not right? I would not blame the Government if the rates proved not to be right, because I do not think that either the Government or we have got anything to go on. What happens if the rates prove not to be good enough? I found slightly disturbing the remark made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) on behalf of the Government on Report to the effect that the Government did not want to change these rates too often. The hon. Gentleman said that it would be unfair to do so. I fully take that point. It would be unfair to those who have gone out if almost immediately the rates were increased. The hon. Gentleman said:
"We shall therefore try to fix a reasonable figure in the first scheme and keep to it for a considerable time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th January, 1967; Vol. 739, c. 229.]
I am by no means certain that by saying that the hon. Gentleman has not gone a little too much towards the other extreme. It depends on what is meant by a "considerable time". The Scheme is to last for seven years. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary who is to reply will assure us that the "considerable time" mentioned by the hon. Member for Leith does not exactly coincide with that and that the Government do not mean that there will be no change
1790
from now until the end of the Scheme if it is found that some change is desirable.
The situation is not altogether unlike that of the national economy, with the need for that celebrated accelerator and brake now and again, possibly. Either may be needed. I repeat that we do not know. Although I, too, agree that it would be absurd to make changes in a hurry, if after a year or two the Scheme is not working, and if the reason for that is that the financial rates are not right, I hope that that length of time would be considered a reasonable time rather than anything much longer than that.
There could be another reason for the Scheme not working properly, namely, the lack of understanding of it. It is essential that the Scheme should be publicised in very simple language, preferably in the form of question and answer on leaflets to be distributed far and wide in the districts most affected. Three points at least need extremely clear explanation, a much clear explanation than exists now. First, how a tenant farmer sets about this matter is not nearly so clear as the position of the small owner-occupier. I think that the leaflet used to publicise the Scheme should contain the question, "How, if I am a tenant farmer, do I go about getting the various advantages that are open to me?"
Second, there is the question of what the National Farmers' Union described, in a paper which most hon. Members will have received today, as the "almost penal provisions" of Schedule 3 which are embodied in the amalgamation Scheme. I merely say that, despite all the protestations of the Minister and his hon. Friends in Committee, it is clear that the assessments of Schedule 3 which the Opposition made were by no means confined to those of us who sat on the Committee.
Third—the hon. Gentleman touched on this in opening—there is the question of the income test in paragraph 7 of the Scheme. As I understand it, the annual farm income must not fall short of the total income by more than £400, or, if it does fall short, it must not be by more than one-third of the farm income, wife's earnings included. Here is another matter which will need simple explanation, with examples, in a leaflet.
For example—I am not sure that this is right, and perhaps we shall he told—

1791
if the average farm income was £600 and the wife had an income, say, from working as a secretary of £400, that would make a total of £1,000, and there would thus be a short-fall between the farm income and total income of £400, which would mean that the farm was just all right. If, on the other hand, the wife were an extremely skilled stenographer, doing shorthand as well as typing, and was earning £624 per annum, the total income would then be £1,224. Would the farm then be excluded? I am not clear what is meant precisely by the short-fall of not more than one-third of the farm income.
Now, paragraph 8 of the Scheme. The maximum size is limited to 110 acres. I think that that is probably a good target for a great deal of land in this country, but I say now, as I have on other occasions, that acres alone are not an altogether reliable guide. I know well that 110 acres of hill land can be extremely uneconomic. It is not the size of the unit so much as the type of unit which is the operative factor in so many of the difficulties. It was significant that in its comments the National Farmers' Union of Scotland described the smallness of the unit as to a large extent only a fringe problem.
In Standing Committee, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith made three statements about these payments which it would be useful to have on the record again to be read by what is probably a wider audience than reads the OFFICIAL REPORT Of Committee proceedings. First, he said that the annuity payments under the Scheme would be made monthly by post, which would save people a lot of trouble in going to collect them. Second, he said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given an undertaking that annuity payments would qualify for earned income relief. Third, he said that the lump sum grant would be free of Capital Gains Tax. Those are three matters of considerable importance. We welcomed them when the statement was made, and I hope that they will be confirmed tonight.
I have concentrated on the Farm Structure Scheme. On the Farm Amalgamations Scheme, I say only this. It is pleasant to see in it a mention of farm cottages for permanent dwelling-houses, as they are called. I only wish that they
1792
could feature in the Farm Improvement Scheme, where, in my view, they ought to come as well. Second, there is frequent use of the expression "a prudent owner". I wonder whether there is a risk of the Department becoming a little too cautious in its administration and its assessment of what a prudent owner is.
I speak with some feeling here. When I applied not long ago for a grant to increase the size of my grain drier, I was informed that this was not something which a prudent owner would do. I regard myself as an extremely prudent owner, and I can testify that, if I had not had that larger capacity in the last harvest, the whole of my wheat crop would have been on the ground as a result of storm and a force 10 gale. It may be difficult for the Ministry to make up its mind what degree of prudence is really prudent or desirable, but I hope that we shall not become too cautious in these matters.
I have dealt fairly generally with these matters, and I do not doubt that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members will have several points to raise. First, it is essential—I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman made it the first point in his speech—that the voluntary aspect of the Scheme should be paramount and there must be no compulsion. Second, if the Scheme is the success which I and my hon. Friends hope it will be, the Government must realise that another problem will face them, the problem of putting the under-55s who take advantage of it, and probably several of the 55–65 age group, into other jobs. I note that the chairman of the Highlands and Islands Development Board commented on this not long ago, saying that it was yet another problem which would face the Board.
However, having said that and, I hope, criticised and commented with a reasonably constructive approach, I make no reservation in hoping that the Scheme will win success. It is an important step and I wish it well.
6.28 p.m.
Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: I congratulate the Minister on bringing these Schemes before us. The Agriculture Bill has taken a long time on its way, and we have had many debates about it, but this has enabled all concerned to give due consideration to its various aspects. Tonight, we have two very good Schemes before us.

1793
The voluntary nature of the Schemes has already been stressed. This must be maintained. I am satisfied that, when the small men realise the benefits to be derived, they will respond, which is what we want. I am concerned about one aspect of the position of the small amalgamator who is faced with competition from a large farmer who wishes to add to his existing large and viable unit. There are many such throughout the country.
There does not appear to be anything in the Act to protect the small man in this case. I am concerned that the Schemes might have the effect of increasing the pace of expansion of already large units and make it more difficult than ever for the man of moderate means to start farming. That is a very important point.
When the Government are prepared to spend so much money to bring about the proposed amalgamations, there should be safeguards to ensure that the land goes to those who need it most. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) unsuccessfully moved an Amendment to the Act on Report to deal with this aspect of the problem and he had referred to the matter at earlier opportunities from the time the Scheme was mooted. Everybody concerned agrees, I think, that we do not want to increase the size of the already large and viable units. What we want is small viable units, by amalgamating those that are small and uncommercial.
I am satisfied that the sums mentioned in the Schemes will be attractive to those who reach retiring age and have nobody to follow them. I have already spoken of them to several crofters who are nearing retirement age, and they seem to regard the conditions as quite generous. I and my party think that the payments are very appropriate.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) referred to publicity for the Schemes, and I agree that this is very important, because a long time is needed to get across what is invovled. In my own area in the Highlands of Scotland, where we have almost 20,000 holdings under crofting tenure, the Crofters' Commission will see that the information reaches those concerned. But where there is no such body we need a means of get-
1794
ting the information across, and I hope that the Minister will bear this in mind.
I commend the Schemes and am happy to see them ready to be put into operation. I hope that they will achieve all that we expect of them.
6.33 p.m.
Mr. Tudor Watkins: It is some time since I had the pleasure of addressing the House, and I am taking the opportunity now by returning on my pet subject of agriculture.
I welcome the speeches we have heard from the other side of the House and by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) about publicity for the Scheme. When farmers write to Members of Parliament there is always a tendency for them to complain that they did not know enough about this and that Scheme. Two new constructive Measures are now coming forward for the first time, and greater publicity will be needed on both than we have had for a long time.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary should consider having some of the leaflets published in the Welsh language for the Welsh-speaking areas of Wales. I am not saying this because of a recent introduction to the House. I always said it when I was in Opposition as well, because there are parts of my constituency, and those of some of my hon. Friends, which require information in the Welsh language.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West also spoke about the wife's income and the income test. My hon. Friend should see if there are some forms of income that could be disregarded, as there are for social security. The farmer's wife's income from the sale of eggs should be disregarded because it has always been considered personal to the wife and nothing to do with the farm income. It gives her money for a weekend holiday or, in Wales, to go to the local Eisteddfod or celebrity concert. It is pocket money.
I also welcome what was said by the hon. Members for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) and Edinburgh, West about the need to stress in all our public speeches that the Schemes are voluntary. If any Ministry official tells a

1795
farmer, "You must do this," I hope that he will be reported at once and that drastic action is taken. There is no question of compulsion; the Schemes are purely voluntary. Whenever hon. Members get an opportunity of speaking in public about agriculture I hope that they will stress this.
I would not like to say that the annuities are a "golden handshake". I hope that those who receive them and who wish to take part-time work will consider doing so in afforestation.
I liked the point of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty about the larger farms bringing in small units. That is a fine financial proposition for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, but it is a bad one in the localities, because we do not want to get ranches anywhere—even in Mid-Wales, where we come under the Rural Development Board, which we shall discuss next Session. We want a genuine amalgamation of small farms, not an extension of the acreage of the larger farmer, with less production per acre than on a small farm.
I have always had a feeling that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food believes in large farms. I do not know why. I have seen some of his territory in Scotland and it is good fertile land that does not need the hard work that has to be done in Mid-Wales. I hope that he will not look at this aspect of amalgamation through the eyes of a large farmer.
I support the two Schemes. Although they are now belated, I hope that they will be put into operation as soon as possible.
6.38 p.m.
Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Like the hon. Members who have already spoken, I welcome the Measures, but there is one omission to which I wish to draw attention, the case of land owned under trust. I understand from reading the Schemes that that land does not qualify for the "golden handshake" when farms are amalgamated. In my constituency is a village hall with what might have been called the glebe of a church in other days, comprising about 35 acres. The trustees of the hall wish to dispose of the land so that they may improve the hall's amenities, structure, fabric, and so
1796
on, to attract more people to use it. I understand that the land would not qualify for the money which would be available to a landlord should he get rid of his land for amalgamation.
This is very unfair. The village halls have a great deal of trouble in remaining viable nowadays. They are derated, but because of the speed of communications, mass media of entertainment and so on, they are not used as they might be—certainly not as much as they were formerly. If, however, the amenities in the halls were better—accommodation for visitors, dances, whist drives, and such like—it is conceivable that they would be used more frequently and the trustees would not have such a difficult time. I ask the Government to look at this sort of case in the hope that money may be made available to such bodies as trustees.
The acreage in question is about 35. The land would amalgamate extremely well with the neighbouring farm. This will undoubtedly be so later. At the moment, the trustees are letting the land out as grass parks, and that cannot be in the best interests of agriculture. On the other hand, if the land qualified for grant and became amalgamated with the neighbouring farm, it would become more productive. It would also mean that the neighbouring farmer would, of necessity, have to take on another man, and that in itself is not a bad thing in areas suffering from depopulation. So I hope that the Government will look at this again.
When the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was introducing the Orders he referred to the paragraph in the first one dealing with the amount of grants, referring to the:
"one-sixth of the area of any land within that unit which appears to the appropriate Minister to be rough grazing land or to be woodland the use of which is ancillary to the farming of the unit".
He said that it was a rough and ready guide. We ought to be told a little more about how the rough and ready guide was made. Why one-sixth? Why not a quarter, even a half or any other fraction? Perhaps the Minister will refer to this point.
Lastly, I refer to the schedule dealing with the works of improvement eligible for grant. Does the grant for sewerage

1797
apply to effluent tanks and the necessary drainage for silage? Silage is becoming increasingly utilised in Scotland, more particularly in the uplands. Legislation concerning the prevention of pollution in rivers is in force. This is another important point, and perhaps the Minister will also deal with this.
6.43 p.m.
Mr. William Edwards: In my constituency seven years ago we had about 2,000 farm units. Now we have 1,400. We have, in fact, lost about 700 farm units during the last few years.
While I agree that the intentions of the Government here are good, and I am sure that there are many hon. Members on both sides who sincerely believe that many small farmers who would be leaving agriculture would benefit from what is proposed, I do not share the optimism that has been expressed that the Scheme will benefit some of the farmers in my consituency and in other parts of the country who are hoping to acquire the small farms which are coming under the Scheme, and thereby remain commercial units.
There are many objections to the Scheme. I ought to have seen some of the objections when discussing the matter in Committee, but I have only just come across them in practice as a lawyer and as a Member of Parliament trying to advise my constituents about the way in which the proposals will operate. I hope that the Government will be able to devise a method of explaining the Scheme simply to people. I have grave doubts whether this is possible because it is not a very simple scheme.
I have been asked a number of questions about the way in which the Scheme will operate. One question was "If I let my farm, which is an uncommercial unit, to another farmer to become a commercial unit, shall I get some kind of pension?" I do not think that such farmers will. Another question was, "If I lease my farm, shall I get a pension?" I do not think such farmers will. But they should.
In the present state of things no one in his senses will sell a small unit of agricultural land on the outskirts of a town, but if the property is leased, the farmer will at least have some reversion and some rights to acquire the increase in
1798
the value of the land. If the land is let, such farmers can acquire pieces of the land and sell them if planning permission is granted on them.
There will be great reluctance in rural areas, where small farms are more of an investment, to sell a farm which has been in the family for many years. I believe that many farmers who are going out will not take advantage of the scheme because they will be reluctant to sell a family holding. The Ministry should be more adventurous and should allow the leasing of farms under acceptable conditions.
I am also worried by the fact that grant will be paid only where the amalgamation has the approval of the Ministry. It seems to me that approval by the Ministry will be given only if the unit is amalgamated with another commercial unit. But I know of many cases in my constituency and other parts of Wales where amalgamation would probably take place between one uncommercial unit and another uncommercial unit and together they would still not be a unit which would have the approval of the Ministry. Far clearer proposals should be put forward with regard to this kind of amalgamation. The amalgamation of two uncommercial units which would still not make a large commercial units in accordance with the Government's proposals ought also to receive approval.
Finally, I reiterate what has already been said about retaining the voluntary element in the Scheme. Whether he tried to or not, the Minister has discriminated against the small amalgamator. If grant under the Scheme is payable to the large amalgamator and the small amalgamator, the small amalgamator has not a chance. These are the facts of life. If the small amalgamator is trying to get a grant under the Scheme and is competing with a large amalgamator, the small amalgamator will be dependent entirely on the grants and assistance given under the Scheme, whereas the large amalgamator will have the equity in his own land and can go to the bank and borrow as much money as he wants on his own equity—and probably he has the money anyway. The large amalgamator is the man who time after time will get the advantage of the Scheme. All that the Government—a Labour Government—are doing is to use Government money to assist the large amalgamator. If all these grants are to

1799
be available to the large amalgamator and the small amalgamator, we shall be subsidising the amalgamation of small farms.
It is no use the Joint Parliamentary Secretary saying that this will not happen; he knows that it will happen. Indeed, my right hon. Friend, in Committee, said that he would look at this state of affairs and that, when Schemes came before the House, the proposals might contain some provision to ensure that the large units now amalgamating, swallowing up one small farm after another, would not get the advantage of the Scheme.
My right hon. Friend acknowledged that a position had arisen in some cases where amalgamations had gone too far. I have been in trouble with the N.F.U. and landowners in my constituency for saying this, but in my view that position has been reached in some farms in my constituency and yet those very people who are farming too much land and are farming it indifferently are those who will get added advantage from the schemes.
I did not come to this House as Member for Merioneth so as to partake of any Scheme which will assist the further amalgamation of farms, and these Schemes are designed to assist the large amalgamators. The Schemes include everyone, but we know that the people who will get Government money out of them are those who are already swallowing up farm after farm and that the small farmer, trying to get money to buy up a small adjoining farm, will not be able to do so because he is being put on the same par as the large farmer.
I did not come here to partake of any Scheme which would accelerate the amalgamation of farms in my constituency into large units—ranches, indeed, is what they are becoming in some places. These Schemes should discriminate against large amalgamators and give some inducement and assistance to the small man which the large amalgamators should not get.
6.52 p.m.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: Like other hon. Members, I welcome both Schemes, which I interpret as showing a large measure of clemency towards the small farmer. I join those who have
1800
already made a plea for the maximum publicity for the Schemes and I also ask that the voluntary character of the Schemes should be stressed over and over again. Speaking for Wales, I am sure that there is very great need for such publicity. There appears to be at the moment a malevolent genius amongst a small number of people in misrepresenting in most lurid terms the innovations brought about in agriculture by the Government.
I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Tudor Watkins) in asking for an assurance that a leaflet will be published in simple, non-bureaucratic language about the schemes and that in Wales it will be in both the Welsh and English languages.
I am sure that both schemes will be much welcomed by small farmers. The Farm Amalgamations and Boundary Adjustment Scheme will particularly assist small farmers in that it will allow them to obtain capital which otherwise they would not have available. It will help them to add to their farms, thus making them viable or bringing them nearer to the standard of viability.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards) is gloomy about the danger of alluring small farmers away from the land but I cannot share his pessimism. Farmers are used to combating the vagaries of weather and the vicissitudes of husbandry. They are made of sterner stuff and will not be seduced away from their land by what, after all, is a fairly modest payment. The Payments to Outgoers Scheme will be of very great benefit in that it will help these people who, in any event, would have left the agricultural industry and in years past left penniless. These are Schemes designed to give humane assistance to people who are greatly in need of such help rather than schemes which will bring about revolutionary changes in the structure of agriculture.
I ask for an assurance that the Minister will exercise his discretion under paragraph 4 of the Farm Amalgamations and Boundary Adjustments Scheme to allow amalgamations only where both the unit that is being abandoned and the unit to which the land is being added are, in the first instance, uncommercial or marginal units. It may well be that Section 26 of the Act makes this necessary already.

1801
I have read that Section many times in the past few months and it seems to me that it is at least arguable that the words
"… transactions for securing that agricultural land which is an uncommercial unit, but which together with some other agricultural land could form an intermediate unit or commercial unit …"
mean, in effect, that both holdings, must, in the first instance, be uncommercial or marginal units.
I believe that there is at least a reasonable chance that a court of law would give that interpretation. But whether that be the case or not, I ask for an undertaking that only in exceptional cases will the Minister allow amalgamations to take place in favour of what is already a large, strong, viable agricultural unit.
Like some of my colleagues, what I fear in relation to these Schemes is not so much the direct or even indirect effect of the Schemes themselves but the rationale which appears to be at their root. I am seized of the suspicion that there is, in the minds of certain legislators and administrators, the belief that a small farm is basically unproductive. I know that the true facts are unrefutably against that belief, and that the assiduity of small farmers and the intensity of their enterprise on their holdings give the lie to such a contention.
Even though 50 per cent. of the farms in Britain are small farms and only produce something less than 10 per cent. of the total output, the amount they produce in relation to the land farmed is much more favourable.
I do not expect that these two schemes can in any way be regarded as a panacea for the ailments of many of our rural areas. They must be seen side by side wish other developments, such as the Highland Development Board in Scotland and the Rural Development Board in Wales and, I hope, other schemes for comprehensive development of our rural areas.
I stress again that the attitude of the Ministry of Agriculture towards small farms should be that there is here a massive challenge. The harsh facts of economic life in most countries certainly make it more difficult for small farms to exist. This is a challenge which legislators and administrators should squarely face. Small farm schemes, incentives to
1802
greater intensity, Annual Price Reviews weighted in favour of small farmers should all be regarded as available tools for bringing about a change in this situation. The aim should be for the preservation of the maximum number possible of our small farms, because farming is not only an industry; it is a way of life of the countryside.
6.58 p.m.
Mr. James Davidson: I will not be long-winded, because I am looking forward to hearing the Minister's reply to the points which have already been made; but I must make one last effort in support of the view that was strongly put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) and also by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards) regarding the advantages that will accrue under these two schemes to the large amalgamator. I welcome these two Schemes in principle, but I have consistently made this point about the advantages to the large amalgamator which will have a very bad effect in certain upland areas of both Wales and Scotland and possibly parts of England.
I first raised this point some years ago as a member of the area executive of the N.F.U. for Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, and I know that through its ramifications it reached the Department of Agriculture in Scotland. Through my contact with the brother of the Parliamentary Secretary I got him to raise the matter in a previous Parliament. I raised it again in the form of an Amendment on Report of the parent Measure and I have since raised it in Questions. This is a vital point which cannot be stressed too much. We must have a clear explanation from the Minister as to how this section will be interpreted.
I know of a smallholding of some 30 or 40 acres which is going on to the market and the owner is only waiting until the Scheme becomes legislation. A large neighbouring farmer is waiting to snap it up when it comes on to the market and there is also a neighbouring small farmer who is in the market for it. I do not know whether in this case, if the two smaller units amalgamated, they would make an intermediate unit or a fully commercial unit, but at least they would be going a long way in the right direction. I also know that the large

1803
farmer will only make one small addition of perhaps 5 per cent. to the land which he already holds.
There is no question that the existence of these grants will raise the market price of this land, but it will put it out of the reach of the smaller farmer. Is this the intention of the Government? Is it their intention—as I suspect—that, in spite of the camouflage and in spite of the Small Farmer scheme, they are politely and kindly writing off the small farmer over a period of time? If this is the intention, then they ought to declare it. If it is not the intention, I hope they will say so.
I feel very strongly about this matter. Along with the views which have already been expressed, I believe that there is a very important place in the agricultural industry for the farmer with the relatively small farm. I am not talking about the very small farm—perhaps this will have to go—I am talking about the farm which can supply a livelihood for one man with some help at weekends from one of his family or somebody who is prepared to come and work part time.
There is also a place for two-men units. If one looks at the figures which have been produced over the years by the North of Scotland College of Agriculture and other authorities it is apparent that in terms of production per acre and per man it is not the very big farms which are serving the country best; it is farms of medium size. In this respect I believe that it would be the greatest pity if the Scheme allowed the large farmer to take in a multitude of smallholdings, thereby raising the market price of such smallholdings and putting them out of the reach of the man with a smaller acreage who merely wants to add to his land and to work towards the building of an intermediate or commercial unit. This is a tremendously important point which cannot be stressed too strongly. It is one about which I feel extremely deeply, and I hope that we shall have a clear explanation from the Minister as to how this part of the Scheme will be interpreted.
7.6 p.m.
Mr. Peter Mills: I think most of us realise that these two Schemes could play a significant part in agriculture today. Therefore, we must consider them very carefully. This we have
1804
done tonight, and certainly in Committee we considered them very carefully and in detail.
We on this side of the House welcome these Schemes, but we still have some fears and reservations. We accept the principle that small uncommercial units need to amalgamate in these days of mechanisation and that a small golden handshake should be given to those who are at present farming uneconomic farms and who wish to get out of agriculture.
I must confess that I have grave reservations about the amalgamations of very large farms. I think there is a limit, because sometimes very real social problems are created. Indeed, I have a letter from a member of the N.F.U. which I will read:
"A case cannot really be argued for the retention of very small units which are not and could not be made viable, but one must fight rigorously against the amalgamation of large units as inevitably this results in less production per acre as the size of units rises."
It is important to remember that this process of amalgamations of these farms has been going on for a very long time. Indeed, some small help was given by the Conservative Government in the 1957 Act by way of grants towards legal costs.
There is no doubt that this movement of amalgamations has been pushed along by economic pressures, and it will continue to do so. I believe that these Schemes will accelerate this process of amalgamation and will help overcome some of the social problems that arise in remote and difficult areas.
I state again that we on this side are bitterly opposed to any form of pressure or force on the small farmers. This cannot be said too often. Hon. Members have raised it time after time tonight and I have no hesitation in stating it again. It must be clearly understood that it is just not on. We will not tolerate any form of force, and bitter resentment would be felt by agriculture if there were the slightest movement in this direction.
I believe that these structural improvements of our small farms, as shown by these two Schemes, will pay dividends whether we go into the Community or not. Indeed, we have a clear lead in overcoming these problems. It is true to say that our own problems in this connection are a picnic compared with what is being experienced overseas,

1805
especially in the Community. It is inevitable that this trend of amalgamation will continue.
May I remind the Minister that viability is by no means to be measured in terms of size only. Skill, management, availability and deployment of capital resources play their part. This is clearly shown in some of the figures which have been published about what these small farms produce.
It is also important to remember the type of people we are considering. They are the backbone of our agricultural community. I think that I am right and that one hon. Member is wrong when he quotes a figure of 50 per cent., because 70 to 75 per cent. of our farmers farm in a small way. Most of them are hard working and honest. Often they live in remote areas which are difficult to farm. They are rather suspicious of change, and these Schemes conjure up emotions in their minds, as I know from my experience of the South-West.
Some small farmers bitterly resent these Schemes, and it is important that the Minister and his colleagues should tread warily in this exercise. Good public relations will have to be established if the Schemes are to work, and careful explanations of the details of the Schemes must be given. In addition, it is important that sympathetic and patient officials deal with applications. I hope that the Minister will issue a leaflet explaining exactly what he is trying to do and why, and I trust that we shall hear no nonsense like Whitehall knows best, otherwise there will be bitter resentment amongst our small farmers.
Having said that, it should be made clear to the small farmer that he is free to choose in the matter, but that he cannot expect a full-time livelihood from a part-time farm. It is important and fair to say that.
During the debate we have heard something about the farming ladder. Some say these two Schemes destroy that farming ladder, and there is a real fear that young men will not have the chance of getting into agriculture. While I can understand that point of view and am sympathetic, with the creation of larger and viable units, more and more profitable opportunities will exist in the future.
1806
I turn now to one or two small points arising out of the Schemes. The position of the small owner-occupier is fairly clear, but I am a little concerned about the small tenant farmer. I trust the Minister will watch the position carefully and tell us how the small tenant farmer is likely to fare under the two Schemes, because he could be at a grave disadvantage.
Paragraph 4(3) of the Farm Amalgamations and Boundary Adjustment Scheme talks about getting in touch with the Ministry before completion of any transaction. In other words, a small farmer must not get under way before he makes application. It is important to make it clear to farmers how essential this is. I have past experience of other schemes and grants where farmers have embarked upon operations without making proper application. I know of their disappointment, and they do not understand it. I hope that it will be stated clearly in the pamphlet that they must make application and must not get under way on any form of amalgamation.
Then I would ask the Minister if there will be any concession to those who have given up farming since last February when this was first mooted. Such action would not be without precedent. In the Agriculture Act, 1967, investment grants on fixed equipment, tractors, and so on, are claimable retrospective to January, 1966. Many farmers have been kept waiting a long time for this to be brought into operation.
In paragraph 3(2) of the Farm Structure Scheme, which concerns the approval of proposals, we have a reference to the business of the intensive unit. There is a provision that
"… the greater part of the feeding stuffs required by any livestock kept on the unit is grown there."
How much has the Minister in mind? What is the real position of the intensive unit in relation to these two Schemes? Many of the real social problems and hardships arise as small farmers with intensive units struggle to produce more. I hope that the Minister will make it clear what sort of yardstick he has in mind.
Paragraph 7(2) concerns the calculation of an annual farm. I omit any reference to eggs as pin money, but I trust that in any decision a lenient view will be taken

1807
of any income derived by the farmer's wife from the holiday trade. In the South-west, this has been the salvation of many small farmers.
What is the future of part-timers? Nothing in these Schemes says very much about them. How will they fit into the Schemes?
Paragraph 8 deals with the payment of grant. We welcome the increase. The need was foreshadowed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), and it is doubtful whether the grants would have been a success unless there had been a higher amount to start with.
Moving on to paragraph 8(1,a), every encouragement should be given to the man under 55 who comes out in terms of retraining for other industries. I hope that the Minister will encourage the Ministry of Labour to deal with the problem. There will be a certain number of younger men coming out. I hope that they will be retrained to go into other industries and play their part in the country's economic struggles.
In the case of paragraph 8(2,d), when working out the sum for hill areas, again, I hope that a generous attitude will be taken, because many of these farmers make up the hard core of the problems. They are the people who need help. Such a farmer may have only 20 acres plus a very large amount of grazing and still be uncommercial. I hope that a lenient view will be taken by the Minister and his officials when dealing with these people.
Still on paragraph 8, I feel that there is a limitation on the people who can buy these farms to amalgamate. The owner of a small farm near a large one will have little opportunity to get the best price for his holding, because probably there will be only one or two larger farmers round him who are prepared to amalgamate. This may reduce the price which he gets before moving out, and the loss may whittle away a large slice of the £1,000 which he is to get. This point has been brought to my attention by a member of the National Farmers' Union, and it is a valid one.
In paragraph 9(1) we come to partners. I can see that the sharing out of the annuity or compensation money will be
1808
difficult. The Minister and his officials will have to watch the position carefully. I myself had a sleeping partner for a long time before I bought him out, and it may be that a small farmer who has done all the work will feel that he should have the lion's share of the annuity or compensation money—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but it is a tricky point, and I hope that the Minister will let us know his views on it.
No one so far has referred to paragraph 10. Apparently it is more profitable to live in sin. If the widow of a farmer marries again, she fails to get the grant of half the annuity which was paid to her husband.
We on this side welcome the Schemes. We have ur fears and reservations, but we trust that they will help the hard core of farmers who work small uneconomical units to get out of their present difficult situation. We await with interest to see how the two Schemes work out in practice.
7.20 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): In opening the debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland went into considerable detail about these Schemes, and I think that he helped the House to a great extent by doing so.
I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) and others who have said that these are complex Schemes, and require considerable explanation. They are very far-reaching, and deal with important matters. We therefore want to make sure that everybody knows about them. Pleas have been made for the maximum publicity for the Schemes, and it has also been said that their details should be set out in the simplest possible language. We are about doing this. Leaflets are being printed. Some are in draft form, some have been issued to some sections of the Press, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Tudor Watkins), and others, will be glad to know that the details will also be printed in Welsh. I assure the House that we will do our utmost to see that everybody who may want to take advantage of the Schemes is adequately instructed on how to do so.

1809
We are breaking new ground in the United Kingdom with these Schemes. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West tried to project what might or might not happen. I agree with him that we do not know exactly how it will work out. He pleaded that we should not persist with the Scheme for too long if it did not work, but he admitted that there were difficulties which would arise if, at short notice, we were to alter the grant. Somebody who had just gone out might be at a disadvantage. This is not an easy problem to solve. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the White Paper on the Development of Agriculture we fixed a fairly low figure. I assure him that there was a great deal of discussion to try to find a figure which we thought was right, and which, bearing in mind the experience of other countries, would turn out to be about correct. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is easier to go up than to come down. This is why we pitched it a bit low in the White Paper, until we had heard all the arguments. We think that these incentives are reasonable, and we hope that they will do what we want them to do.
Our aim is to improve farm structure. We want to keep the edge that we have on the European Community if and when we go in. I think that this will do just that. As my right hon. Friend said on one occasion, we want to improve structure and also to cushion. I think that I can say no more than that. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West said, speeches have been made saying that the Schemes offer some modest incentive. The two do not seem to be very different. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was trying to imply that they are.
I have referred to the printing of leaflets, and to the publicity which is to be given to the Scheme. Although it is complex, I think that in general people understand it. A man who genuinely goes out and whose farm is to be amalgamated will get a lump sum if he is of a certain age, and if he is in another age group he can take a pension. The person who is doing the amalgamating will get a 50 per cent. grant to assist with the various items set out in the Schedule. The details of how the Scheme will work and how it will be applied will
1810
be set out in the leaflets to which I have referred.
I was asked about the tenant farmer and about one ownership. I was given an instance of the difficulties which would confront a tenant farmer. Reference has been made to getting the co-operation of the landlord, and whether the money would be paid to somebody who let his farm. The Scheme provides that the land must be under one ownership after the amalgamation. If hon. Members study the Scheme—and there is at least one lawyer amongst those who have raised various points this evening—they will realise that this is so, and that it would be bad to start doing other things which may give rise to difficulties. We therefore have to stick to the point that the tenant farmer must have the cooperation of his landlord. In many cases landlords will be anxious to co-operate, and I do not think that tenant farmers will be at much of a disadvantage compared with others.
Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member wishes to intervene, he must indicate it by sound.
Mr. Mackenzie: In my area there is a large proportion of small farmers who are tenants of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Am I right in assuming that the right hon. Gentleman will co-operate with them?
Mr. Mackie: My right hon. Friend is in agreement with the Scheme, and I am sure that he will co-operate in every way.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West referred to what he called the penal provisions of the Schemes. I think that he has cribbed these words from a leaflet issued by the N.F.U., which appeared in our post this morning. I think that rather heavy weather has been made of these provisions. We are spending a lot of public money. The Scheme may cost from £15 million to £17 million a year, and I do not think that it would be right not to have a fairly severe penalty if people break up a holding which has received the grant. The Minister will have a lot of discretion, and I am certain that it will be used properly.
I do not think that hon. Members need be worried about the provisions of the Scheme in respect of a little land lost for a petrol station or housing which

1811
would not basically alter a large amalgamation. I am sure hon. Members will agree that these provisions are necessary when they remember that we are spending such a large sum of public money.
Reference has been made to the income test, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West cited an example to illustrate his argument. We had to draw the line somewhere. Someone immediately above the line will feel hard done by, but this happens with any scheme. It is just in the nature of the beast. Here we have arrived at a figure of £400 and the provision that, for every £1 in excess of £400 there must be £3 worth of farm income. This seems to be reasonable, and if someone is a little above it, there it is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor spoke about wives getting pin money from the sale of eggs. I do not think that we had better go into too much detail about this. Even though there is no Treasury Minister here, I am afraid that it must be considered as farm income.
With regard to outgoers' payments, and how they are to be made, and on the question of qualifications for tax relief, we have made no alterations in the arrangements.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West said that cottages came within the Scheme, but they were not within the Farm Improvement Scheme. I do not think that it is in order to open that argument today.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West said when he spoke of what a prudent owner might do in respect of amalgamations which would be outside the scope of the Scheme. The hon. Gentleman is a prudent owner, but he must admit that there is a point at which we will need to look at something which nobody would do, such as joining two farms on opposite sides of a mountain. The amalgamator may want money to build a tunnel to join the two. I am going to extremes, but there may be occasions when it will be necessary to use our discretion.
The hon. Member and several others raised the question of retraining those under 55. I could not agree more, but the Agricultural Training Scheme is
1812
under way, and I am sure that it will benefit people who want to go out and train either to go on to another farm or they can take advantage of industrial training and go into another industry. They will have a considerable lump sum to help them on the way.
The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) congratulated us and stressed again the fact that the Schemes are voluntary. We want to make it clear to everybody that the Schemes are voluntary. None of our officers will apply any pressure, or tell people that they must or should take part in these Schemes.
Several hon. Members—especially the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson)—raised the vexed question of the advantage which the large man would have over the small man. He wants this to be taken out of the Scheme; he wants us to provide that only small commercial farms should be amalgamated with non-commercial ones. I ask hon. Members to consider the difficulties. One hon. Member mentioned how many amalgamations there had been of one kind and another. It is my experience that, in the past, without any scheme, the big man has had an advantage.
The hon. Member knows Aberdeenshire as well as I do, and he will appreciate that the big man has always had an advantage. The Scheme does not make it more advantageous to the big man; indeed it makes it slightly more advantageous to the small man, in that if he has a farm which is less than a certain size he can get a 100 per cent. loan, whereas the bigger man can get only an 80 per cent. or 90 per cent loan.
The Schemes must be voluntary all the way through, and if we start to compel people to do things in one way or in another, or as we would like them to, we should completely destroy their voluntary nature. We should take away the market from the small man if we excluded the big man from bidding or going into it. We have given a slight edge in favour of the small man. To do anything more would immediately destroy the voluntary nature of the Schemes, and I ask the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West to appreciate this point, although I know how deep are his feelings on the subject.
Mr. Emlyn Hooson: This slight edge to which the Minister has

1813
referred—this differential—will only be 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. In practice, the large man will win every time, because he already has economic advantages. Will the Minister give an undertaking to reconsider the percentages and to readjust them if he finds that the large man is constantly amalgamating, and not the small one?
Mr. Mackie: I think that I can give the hon. and learned Member that assurance. We shall certainly keep our eye on the situation. In due course there will doubtless be an opportunity to report to the House on the way in which the schemes are working. If what the hon. and learned Member fears appears to be happening to a greater extent than normal, I take it upon myself to give an assurance that we will reconsider the question of the percentage loans.
Mr. William Edwards: I may be very dim, but I fail to understand how a refusal to give a grant to a wealthy amalgamator who has already got the money to buy a small farm will make the Schemes compulsory. Somebody must have advised my hon. Friend on this point. Who is the genius in his Department who has advised him that this would make the scheme compulsory?
Mr. Mackie: I did not say that; I said that it would take away the voluntary nature of the Schemes. The voluntary nature is implied in the situation when two farmers get together, one wanting to go out and the other to amalgamate. If we say, "We shall not allow you to be the amalgamator; we must make the other man the amalgamator", we take away the voluntary nature of the Scheme. As I explained earlier, we would be taking from the small man a better market for his farm.
Mr. James Davidson: It should be made clear that in no way does this take away the market from the man with a small unit who is trying to sell it. It is a question of public money assisting the large man instead of the small man. Both can still be in the market. In respect of the example that I mentioned, both a large and a small farm are in the market for a smallholding. The fact that both are eligible for amalgamation grants does not affect the number of markets available. If the amalgamation grant were
1814
available only for the small farmer it would not mean that the large farmer would drop out. He would still be in the market—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a second speech disguised as an intervention.
Mr. Mackie: I cannot agree with what the hon. Member says. If there is a 50 per cent. grant going to the large farmer as well as to the small one, it is bound to have a considerable effect on the market. Large farmers look at every penny they are to spend and every penny they might gain. That is probably why they are large farmers. They will not ignore the fact that they are going to get a 50 per cent. grant for the amalgamation expenses. It is a pity that I gave way to the hon. Member.
The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) raised a point about land in trust. The annunity or block grant must be paid to a person. I am sorry that we could not help the small village hall trustees of Banffshire, but anybody who takes over land in the form of an amalgamation would get the grant to amalgamate, and that might help the market for the land.
Several hon. Members have asked me how we arrive at the formula of six acres to one acre in respect of rough grazing for the purpose of amalgamation. All along the line we have had various calculations like this. It seems to be a fairly reasonable formula, taking the quality all over the country. It was not a case of guessing. The hon. Member for Banff asked why we should not have decided on four acres to one acre or eight acres to one acre, but we think that six acres is about right.
The question of effluent tanks is dealt with under paragraph 11 of the Schedule.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards) said that over a certain period 700 small farmers in his constituency had amalgamated. I do not know the picture. I do not know where they went, but surely it is better to have these Schemes to help, irrespective of my hon. Friend's reservations about the large farmer taking over. I have a feeling that his constituents will not be so much against the Schemes as he is.

1815
My hon. Friend asked about a tenant being allowed to get out if he lets his farm to help conserve his right if it should become building land. The Scheme is voluntary, and if somebody has a small piece of land next to a town he can hang on to it. We cannot help such people. That is not one of the objects of the scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) pleaded for publicity, including publicity in the Welsh language. He wanted to give the Minister more discretion in respect of intermediate farms. We have given the Minister a fair amount of discretion on this matter. We want the Minister to have power to refuse or to give grant for such amalgamations because we must look at the whole situation, to make sure that, ultimately, the amalgamation will come up to the standard of 600 man-days. I cannot give too big an assurance about that.
Three hon. Members have mentioned the question of production on small farms. I do not altogether agree. I might say to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor that I look at the Scheme as objectively as I can, not as a large farmer, but from the country's viewpoint. I am sure that basically it will do a lot of good in the country. My hon. Friend may take it that I will look at the position as objectively as possible.
There is no question of its being a camouflage—I am giving a lot of assurances to the hon. Member for Aberdeen-shire, West—for writing off the small family farm. The intention is to help people out of farms which, we all know, will never be viable for various reasons.
We are not only taking the criterion of acreage. We know that a lot of small farms which have intensive production are viable. We have not only continued the Small Farmer Scheme, but we have extended it. This being so, we could not possibly be said to be writing off the small farms.
The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) gave considerable praise to the scheme and said that in the 1957 Act his party gave some assistance. I saw the figures, but this measure did not have a lot of effect. Nevertheless, it was something. I have made the point that we are
1816
doing a lot to keep our edge on farm size and viability. We have the edge, and it is a good thing to stay that way. I agree that small farmers work hard, but I could not understand why the hon. Member said that they were mostly honest. However, I will not go into that in detail.
We have gone to greater length than usual in the instructions to officials about how to operate the Scheme. The instructions extend to several pages. I assure the hon. Member that the officials will be sympathetic in every way and that in no way will they apply pressure of any kind.
The hon. Member spoke about the completion of amalgamations after February. The provision was inserted so that people can go ahead with any arrangements they wish, provided the deal has not been completed, they will get grant. If, however, arrangements are completed before they have made application, naturally they will not get grant. Our intention is to warn people who may be thinking about it that they can go on with as many arrangements as they like but that they should not complete the deal without making application.
Mr. Peter Mills: Do I understand that that applies to those who started a process of amalgamation dack-dated to February last?
Mr. Mackie: No. Not the process of amalgamation. If they have carried out any amalgamation, the deal must have been completed. If, however, it is merely an arrangement to amalgamate but no process has taken place or been completed, of course grant would be payable. If people have gone through any of the legal processes and the deal has been signed, such a case would be well on the way to completion and it would not count for grant. I am sorry to say that we could not back-date it. That would be too difficult.
Mr. William Edwards: Will my hon. Friend define the difference between an arrangement and a process? Otherwise, he might mislead a number of people.
Mr. Mackie: We will try to make the position clearer than it is at present.
About partnerships; the partners must arrange between themselves. They cannot expect the Minister to do it.

1817
We have argued at length about a widow's half of an annuity falling by the wayside when she remarried. It appears that there were precedents for it, and we had to fall in with them. There is also the argument about what would happen if it were the widow who was the farmer and died and the widower remarried, but I had better not go into that one.
I have answered most hon. Members, I hope, adequately. Having had a little more time than usual to study these agricultural Schemes, which as a rule do not come until late at night, we have had a very good debate. Our proposals represent a completely new measure for the country and it is fortunate that we have had more time than usual to discuss it. Generally speaking, the Scheme has received the blessing of every hon. Member. We are grateful for this and I hope that it is a good augury for the Scheme.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Farm Structure (Payments to Out-goers) Scheme, 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 26th July, be approved.
Farm Amalgamations and Boundary Adjustments Scheme, 1967,[draft laid before the House on 26th July] approved.—[Mr. John Mackie.]

ADJOURNMENT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

HIRE PURCHASE AND DOORSTEP SALESMEN
7.46 p.m.
Miss Joan Lestor: During, the Recess my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody), who is to answer this debate tonight, gained her appointment to the Board of Trade. I congratulate her on that appointment and I hope that the substance of this debate will contribute towards her first performance at the Dispatch Box and show her as a Minister of vision and action.
The question of hire purchase and doorstep salemen has been raised in the House before. Although I am concerned
1818
with the general principles, particularly those which were brought to the notice of the House in a Bill which was introduced by, I think, the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison), but which fell last Session, I wish to concentrate on a certain aspect of doorstep salesmanship which has been taking place in my constituency with worrying results.
We all know that many people are gullible and that if someone comes to one's doorstep and offers something for sale, it is up to the person concerned whether he or she falls for the patter of the salesman. Nevertheless, it is up to the Government and to legislation to protect people as far as possible from the slick talk of doorstep salesmen and, if possible, to close any loopholes in the legislation if it does not cover some of the actions which are taking place.
My remarks on this occasion are concerned mainly with the selling of what is called central heating equipment and installation, but it can be applied to various other doorstep selling methods which have been used in various parts of the country. We are all familiar with some of the claims made by doorstep salesmen. In this instance people have been approached by more than one firm, but I shall concentrate on one firm which claims to be agents for a heating company.
Householders are told that if they will allow the equipment to be installed in their home, it will then be used as a show house. This gives the buyer the impression that she is likely to get a pukka installation because it will be used for demonstration purposes. The second bribe is that the price will be much cheaper, because the equipment will be available for others to see and to inspect.
Leaving aside the obvious loopholes of the Hire Purchase Act, which provides for the lapse of a certain length of time before a hire-purchase deal is concluded, and that salesmen can present themselves without having to offer credentials, the sort of thing which has happened in the Eton and Slough constituency is that people have presented themselves on the doorstep and stated that they were agents for a company which sells central heating equipment. For the moment, the central heating equipment is not in dispute. Its performance is in dispute, as are the claims which are made for it, and the

1819
means whereby it is financed are being questioned.
This particular firm in my constituency was operating for some considerable time and I received many complaints about it, because the central heating equipment installed was far from adequate. Attempts to contact the agents who installed it proved fruitless because they had either changed their telephone number, or their address, and moved out of the area. I checked this with the Board of Trade in June last, referring to the firm, asking that it should be investigated.
I was told that it was registered under the Companies Act and I was given the names and addresses of three directors of the firm, to all of whom I wrote by registered post. I received no reply from any. I wrote to the head office address provided by the Board of Trade but by this time it seemed to have closed its offices. I then contacted the Post Office because I discovered that the telephone number being used by the firm now belonged to someone else. The Post Office said that the firm had used the phone number but gave it up in July, 1966, and that it should not now be using it. It now has another number but this is ex-directory and propriety prevented the Post Office from telling me what this number was.
The same protection prevented the very people who wanted to contact it about the inadequacy of its central heating equipment from doing so. I then contacted a finance company which was financing, as I thought at that time, the equipment sold by this firm. The firm told me in a letter:
"Although we ourselves have endeavoured to contact this firm we have been unsuccessful and we understand they are no longer in business as central heating engineers".
Another loophole then arose, because the finance company involved, I discovered, did not finance the goods that this particular firm sold, but made a personal loan to the people who were persuaded to buy these goods. In this way the firm was not responsible for the quality or the inadequacy of the goods being bought, and, more important, because the people offering the goods for sale used, in this instance, the name of a very well known finance house, it lent some credulity to the transaction.
1820
Although it is perfectly true that when one reads the form to be completed this is indeed a personal loan, and is not related to the goods, most people who engage in hire-purchase agreements assume that the firm financing the equipment, particularly if it is a well known firm, is likely to be taken as a guarantee as to the good performance of the equipment and as a guarantee that the people selling it are likely to be above board.
One finds that this money is loaned as a personal loan and is not related to the good bought by the purchaser. The next stage arose when many people in my area complained to me that the performance of this so-called central heating equipment was inadequate. It may be that the claims made by the salesmen were exaggerated and the people were disappointed, and certain things were not put in writing, as is very often the practice.
When my attempts and the attempts, presumably, of the finance company, as well as the attempts of others to contact the firm responsible for installation failed, many of my constituents stopped paying for this equipment pending its being put right. They then found that they were liable for the amount of money that they had borrowed because it was a personal loan to them.
Although the equipment was inadequate and although, upon investigation, through the manufacturers of some of the equipment, there appears some evidence to suggest that the price at which it was being retailed was way above what they would recommend, nevertheless the people were liable, not for the value of the goods but for the £300 or so that they had borrowed.
Naturally they withheld payment because they wanted satisfaction. I and many other people in my area became involved in trying to find the firm and to find some way of dealing with this matter. We were unlucky and we arrived at the situation where people in my constituency were threatened with court proceedings. Some of them have actually been summoned to court in order to meet their financial obligations to a finance house for equipment which they find totally inadequate, yet they have no "come-back" in law, because they cannot find the people responsible for installing it.

1821
I am bound to say, in fairness, that one finance house involved, after representations made by myself, and the district secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, through which some of the complaints came, and following a lot of publicity given through the Slough Observer, has agreed to hold up any court actions that it has begun, pending investigation, particularly by an independent engineer on the quality of the goods supplied, and upon the performance of the goods. The finance house has now informed me that it has ceased to finance another firm of like nature again because there have been many complaints.
So at least two shady firms have been selling central heating equipment in my constituency, gaining credulity for what they were doing, because they were able to give the financial aid from a finance house of some repute. There seem to be several things wrong with the existing law which need to be investigated. I realise that in an Adjournment debate one cannot propose new legislation, but I hope that my hon. Friend will look at the situation that has arisen in this light.
If a finance house had to accept responsibility for the methods used by salesmen, who after all are promoting the sale of its finance, and had to accept responsibility for the performance of the goods sold, bearing in mind that its name is used as a reference, this might go some way towards dealing with the difficulties that we have experienced. The practice whereby money is loaned in this way, outside of the normal hire-purchase agreement, should cease. Where money is advanced on a hire-purchase agreement, as these people believed it to be, finance houses and the like should not be permitted to advance above a certain amount unless the loan is directly related to the goods being bought.
Otherwise, as far as the law stands, and as far as is shown in the investigations that I and others have carried out, there is nothing to protect people from being committed to a personal loan for a considerable amount of money for goods which prove to be partially, or in sonic cases, totally inadequate. If these firms from which people need protection through the agency of the Board of Trade go out of existence, as this firm did—it is registered as bankrupt—the people have no protection at all and are liable
1822
to pay back the loan irrespective of the performance of the goods.
These practices have been going on in my constituency for a considerable time. I have highlighted one aspect of doorstep selling and fraudulent representation, because that is what it is, but there are many other examples which I and other hon. Members could give. Since the Press has taken up one or two of the cases, and there have been one or two newspaper articles on this, I have been inundated with letters from various parts of the country, telling of some of the troubles experienced by people. I have also received letters from companies engaged in hire purchase business, who are doing this in the proper manner, but who feel that greater protection is needed for people.
Many of us feel—and I, as the representative of the people of Eton and Slough, who have been subjected to this, feel particularly—that whatever the outcome of our difficulties, until the law is tightened up, any publicity and warning my constituents can give to other people may protect those people from being caught in this alarming way. The importance of this warning being issued has been made clear time and again by the Consumer Council and it is stressed in the Board of Trade letter to me. My constituency is not alone in this matter and my experience, though in another connection, is that these firms tend to move from one area to another, changing their names in the process and so making it difficult to check on them.
8.1 p.m.
Mr. Ian MacArthur: Hon. Members are grateful to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) for raising this subject, which enables us to discuss an issue which affects many constituencies. I have an interest in this matter not only because it is a constituency issue, but also because some years ago I started making a small, amateur probe into the commercial practices followed by certain companies operating door to door selling techniques.
The hon. Member for Eton and Slough will agree that it should he made clear that many companies engaged in door to door selling are entirely reputable. Many of these firms sell household goods. Tonight we are concerned with the minority of companies which are practising on

1823
the doorstep something that can only be described as fraud.
I recall making an investigation some years ago into the switch selling operations conducted by a firm of sewing machine manufacturers. Happily, the firm is now out of business. I was shocked to find how it was possible for salesmen of this type to get round the provisions of the law and treat housewives in a cruel way. Despite the collapse of the switch selling business, abuses still occur.
The hon. Lady referred to central heating salesmen. There are also abuses in the sale of encyclopaedias. One well-known encyclopaedia company was charged with questionable selling practices, but I found upon investigation that any charge of that kind could not be properly levelled at that firm. However, there are others which force their way into houses by means which are deplorable. They may not be illegal, and it is difficult to see how the law could control them.
I had experience not long ago of the selling operations of a small encyclopaedia producer. It was an encyclopaedia produced for children, I imagine quite a good publication, and the aim of the publishers was to present it across the doorstep to the mothers of children who had recently started at primary schools. To compile a list of customers, salesmen approached headmistresses in primary schools, often in villages, to discover from them, in the course of conversation, which children had just started school at the age of 5.
Armed with this information a salesman would call on one of the mothers and present himself as, in a sense, an emissary of the schoolmistress. Naturally the parent, interested in the early education of the child, tended to welcome a visitor who was thought to be someone with official standing. I find it difficult to see how the law is able to control this sort of activity. Whatever the statute law, there will be some way in which people can improperly, but quite legally, obtain the names of prospective customers.
There is an even more blatant abuse of commercial propriety practised by another firm of encyclopaedia producers.
1824
The custom followed by some of the salesmen in this case is, by one means or another, to compile a list of prospective customers—the parents of children of school age—and then to call on the doorstep and say, probably to the mother, "I have called about Johnny's education."
There is nothing dishonest in this in terms of the law, but the mother's natural reaction is to suppose that the salesman has something to do with the school and that he must in some way be associated with the local education authority. As a result, he is invited into the house and, by skilful probing, establishes that Johnny is either very bright or very stupid.
In either case, he is able to persuade the parent that individual attention is all-important, because of Johnny's brilliance or his stupidity. In either case, individual attention is needed to bring out the best in the child. The next stage is to explain that, in our overcrowded schools, this individual attention is impossible. The parent, who is the person most interested in the child's education, is told how vital it is that she should participate in it—and the means for participation, of course, is the encyclopaedia, which is then produced for sale. This approach is, clearly, almost one of fraud. I understand that the salesmen in this case take care not to say that they are representatives of the local education authority. However, they come as near that as they legally can.
What is the solution to this and similar problems? I realise that in the present state of the law action can be taken if, for example, fraud has occurred and that this might, perhaps, limit the extent of this practice. However, it is difficult for the law to define the line which divides proper practice from improper practice. The law must be careful not to discourage a process of selling which is often entirely respectable and proper. I see no reason why the law should prohibit the sale of all goods on the doorstep. Equally, at what point, if at all, should the law protect people from their own stupidity or extravagance? Nevertheless, there must be a dividing line between this and the fraudulent exploitation to which the hon. Member for Eton and Slough referred.

1825
In the end, I believe that we may have to decide on some sort of licensing of doorstep salesmen. I recognise the great difficulties involved in operating this, although I should have thought it possible to operate such a system through local authorities. Certainly, the situation as it exists is unsatisfactory.
I am also convinced that we must be careful not to exaggerate the situation. These sort of improper selling practices represent a small part of our total commercial life and the vast majority of selling on the doorstep is done with propriety. No hon. Member would want to see that extinguished. I believe that publicity is one of the best ways of extinguishing such practices by alerting housewives to the risks they may face from time to time from dishonest traders on the doorstep.
Like other hon. Members, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough for drawing attention to this problem, enabling us to bring home to the public some of the risks involved.
8.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), not only for raising this very interesting and important subject tonight but for her kind good wishes on my new appointment. I should say, of course, that I am not nervous at finding myself at this Despatch Box for the first time—I am simply clutching it for support.
The subject of doorstep selling is extremely difficult for one of many human reasons, and is bound to have enormous complications. The smooth, acceptable person who comes to the door, who does not instantly identify himself as being a salesman, who begins to talk about many other social aspects of life before getting round to the subject that concerns him, who gains entry on what can, in some instances, almost be taken to be fraudulent reasons but who is very careful to keep within the law, is an extremely practised gentleman against whom it will be very difficult for the unsuspecting housewife to protect herself.
The sort of case to which my hon. Friend has referred as occurring in her own constituency means that people who
1826
sign for a particular loan without carefully considering the kind of conditions they are accepting will be liable for a great amount of money. They will find themselves in difficulty if, after a very short time, there are troubles with the actual equipment that is installed in their house.
One of the features of doorstep sales is that the representative of, say, the heating company produces an agreement which, if the occupant signs it, means that he is simply agreeing to the installation of heating equipment. It probably contains a provision that it can be cancelled only by payment of a proportion of the contract price, and in order to get out of the contract the householder may find himself liable for quite a large sum of money. He then undertakes a completely separate arrangement with a finance house. This is the point that is not always realised by the householder. What he is doing then is signing an application to a finance house for a loan of the amount required, less the deposit. These are two totally separate transactions.
The difficulty arises if the installation is not adequate and if the householder then wishes to withhold payment on the loan, because he is still liable to the finance company and has very little redress against the installer. One should point out that most finance houses wish to deal with reputable installers, and try to protect themselves as far as they can.
There are things that householders should always bear in mind. When they are offered any form of heating installation they should consider whether they will be able to check with one of the electricity boards or gas boards, or, in the case of oil, with those who provide that type of equipment, whether or not they have an effective and efficient form of heating that will provide the type of heat they want. They should make quite sure that they understand exactly what the equipment they are having installed will do.
The Consumer Council produced a very useful leaflet seeking to warn householders of some of the difficulties they would be likely to face—what it called a "do's and don'ts" book on central heating sales over the doorstep.

1827
It suggested that people should not buy without comparing the claims and the costs. It said that one should be very suspicious of offers to give a price reduction, and particularly the sort of gambit that one's own house will be used as a show house and that one will receive a special offer at a lower price in order that other people may see the equipment in use.
It emphasised—and this is something that the House should be prepared to emphasise again tonight—that one should never be tempted to sign a contract because of the offer of a discount for selling on that particular evening. The housewife who then calls into account the father who comes home at some other time, and who says, "I cannot sign, I must consult the rest of the family", has some sort of protection, and some time to think over what it is she is letting herself in for.
The Consumer Council suggested that people should not sign satisfaction notes, that in many cases are taken by the finance houses as proof that the deal is going through, until they have had an opportunity to find out whether the system is functioning properly. This is one of the difficulties mentioned by my hon. Friend. She may have thought that we should make some effort to have a cooling-off period such as one has in hire-purchase legislation, but one of the difficulties with central heating purchase is that the equipment is quite often installed during the summer but only used in the winter, which means that it would be quite impossible to write in a sufficiently long cooling-off period, if there were any intention to do such a thing, to protect the householder. The other difficulty is that, once installed, central heating becomes part of the house, and is therefore in a different category from goods which can be repossessed by the finance houses.
The real need here is to try to emphasise on all householders that they must read all the small clauses in the contract before signing it. They must, in so far as we are able to give publicity to the difficulties they are likely to encounter, be quite sure that they are getting the sort of equipment they par-
1828
ticularly need, and they must be extremely suspicious of any extra offers that are given in the guise of special concessions.
When the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) speaks of children's encyclopaedias he raises one aspect of doorstep selling that I find completely abhorrent. It is always very easy to get proud parents to concern themselves with their children's education, and to use this—and, even more, to use the names of local headmistresses or imply that one comes from the local education authority—as a means of encouraging people to embark on great expenditure which is probably not in any way necessary, is totally reprehensible, and one wants to be able to protect people from the sort of situation described by the hon. Gentleman. It is sometimes difficult to protect people from their own particular desires, and what we must again emphasise is that pride can, in this instance, lead to a rather nasty fall if we are not prepared to examine very closely what is taking place.
However, one must say that the Misrepresentation Act of 1967 goes some of the way to assist an injured party in the case of innocent misrepresentation. It means that a person who feels that he is entitled to damages now has some sort of recourse to law, with the proviso, of course, that the person making the misrepresentation can show that he had reasonable cause to believe that his statements were true. This could be very helpful to a person who could prove that performance of a system did not match the claims made on its behalf. When the Protection of Consumers (Trade Descriptions) Bill is reintroduced it should be more difficult for the consumer to be misled by high pressure salesmen about central heating. It should largely deal with the problem.
We are very sympathetic to the human problems involved when people unwittingly commit themselves either to large expenditure or to a great deal of installation in their houses which they find to be totally unsatisfactory. We realise that this is bound to cause not only great unhappiness but in some cases quite a deal of hardship. We are very sympathetic to the problems which my hon. Friend has raised this evening. In the

1829
final analysis, publicity of the sort mentioned by both hon. Members is one protection and we must try to get the ordinary housewife and the ordinary person who buys over the doorstep to realise that in doing so they are running risks which they might not run under other forms of buying and that their final protection must be their own good, hard common sense and a very close examination of the clauses of any agreement they sign.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the subject of central heating. I am sure that everything she has said, not only about problems in her constituency but about the whole question of doorstep selling, will be carefully noted and. I hope, very widely publicised. Her Majesty's Government are always extremely concerned to assist the consumer in any way they can and we shall naturally bear her views very much in mind.

ISLAND OF ALDABRA (STAGING POST)
8.22 p.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In my more candid moments I sometimes wonder whether Members of Parliament do not too often get themselves into the position of crying over spilt milk when debating—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. Is the hon. Member carrying on the previous debate, or starting a new one? If it is a new one, will he say whether he has warned the Minister?
Mr. Dalyell: I have given my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force and also the Treasury, the Foreign Office, the C.R.O. and the Ministry of Public Building and Works, very ample notice over two days. I think that I can say, on his behalf, that perhaps he is glad to have an opportunity of answering this debate.
Mr. Ian MacArthur: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be helpful to other hon. Members if we knew what the debate was to be about.
Mr. Dalyell: It is about the question of the need or otherwise for a staging post or base on the Indian Ocean Island of Aldabra.
I think that Parliament as a whole gets itself into this position of discussing things about which it can do very little, as I say into crying over spilt milk after the event. The purpose of this Adjournment debate is to fulfil the rôle of a Member of Parliament in that he has a rôle to be somewhat inquisitorial about future decisions. My object tonight is not to castigate the Government, but rather to probe some very awkward and difficult questions before such time as the Government get themselves into a position of adopting any kind of a public posture. In all I shall advocate there is no question of the Government losing face because the decisions are not yet taken.
I should like to have the opportunity of expressing my strong views before any final decision is reached. Before I go to the main argument I may say that perhaps this kind of subject is the best argument of all for some kind of Select Committee of the House of Commons on Defence, because it does not lend itself to glib argument or to generalisation or innuendos of a rather superficial nature. I certainly would go along with the present Leader of the House and the present Paymaster-General in advocating a Select Committee to deal with questions like this of those who have a serious interest in defence matters.
I have spent five hours today in the Select Committee on Science and Technology examining the nuclear power policy on which we have spent eight months' work. I am quite satisfied that the Select Committee kind of inquisitorial probing by the House gives far better results to the country and Parliament than any other form of parliamentary activity on these rather abstruse and perhaps esoteric matters.
I should like to see, on the question of Aldabra, an interrogation of Sir Solly Zuckerman, certainly Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Dermot Boyle, who has contributed letters to The Times on this subject, and Alastair Buchan, Director of the Institute of Strategic Studies, and certainly the President of the Royal Society, Professor Blackett. I should also like to see called as witnesses some of

1831
the young men who have been to Aldabra and have recently returned from the expedition led by Dr. Stoddard, of Cambridge.
I shall fully understand if the Under-Secretary cannot give full answers tonight, because some of the questions that will be asked have to be answered either by the Secretary of State for Defence or the Prime Minister, as they are of a very deep and fundamental nature. This is really a multi-dimensional question. First, it involves several Departments, the Department of Education and Science, the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office, because relations with the Americans obviously have a considerable bearing on any answers that are given, certainly the Commonwealth Office because of relations with Mauritius, and certainly the Treasury, because I question very much the figure of £20 million which has been mentioned as the cost.
I would even go so far, after discussions, as saying that if the various schemes that are planned were carried out, at the end of the day it might well amount to £100 million. Certainly, the Ministry of Public Building and Works, whose representatives have been to Aldabra, are directly involved and the question arises whether they have done any kind of a proper survey of the South Island.
Although there is a sparse attendance in the House tonight I assure my hon. Friend that his answer will be very widely read by even thousands of scientists, perhaps of very many different disciplines, who are deeply concerned about this subject, in the same way as they were concerned about Cow Green and as they are concerned about many problems in the defence field. I shall be discussing his reply tomorrow with the Director of the United States Marine Science Programme, who is coming to lunch with me.
First, I want to deploy the case, as I see it, of the Royal Society, which has been very helpful in briefing me and clearing up all sorts of points. The Royal Society says that, as the result of a further detailed study of the situation set out in a memorandum detailing the scientific interests in Aldabra, and the probable effects on its ecological system, the Society is convinced that any extensive development of the atoll will inevitably destroy
1832
the greater part of these biological features, the result of a long period of evolution in isolation from the great land masses which make Aldabra unique among the atolls of the world.
The Royal Society goes on to say that alone of the Indian Ocean elevated atolls, Aldabra has never been mined for guano and has never been stripped of vegetation and soils. Weeds and pests have not been introduced, so that unique forms of life ill adapted to competition with invaders have been retained.
I will not trouble the House with the details of this memorandum. It is sufficient to say that 10 per cent. of the plants in Aldabra are found nowhere else in the world, that 28 per cent. of the 127 species of insects are endemic, and there are extremely interesting crustaceans, molluscs, fruit bats, and fresh water fish. For geologists, most of the high limeston islands have had their ecological systems irreversibly altered by man's activities and only Aldabra and Henderson Island, in the Pacific, remain.
Briefly, that is the start of the scientists' case. It is not up to me to put words into the mouth of the Secretary of State for Defence, but, as I understand it, his argument was this in his meeting with the Royal Society. My right hon. Friend said, "I can give the undertaking that if a decision is eventually taken to go ahead with the building of an airfield or a harbour on the island, we will ensure that the scientific bodies are fully and continuously consulted. Our object is to ensure that the changes to the ecosystem of the island are kept to a minimum."
In this matter I do not doubt for one moment the good faith of the Ministry of Defence, but, with the best will in the world, can any kind of protection, in fact, be carried out? It seems to me that there are dangers from accidental interference. There are dangers from bored personnel. Those of us who have had the good fortune to visit remote military or naval units understand the human reasons that make them bored and they want a little excitement. Naturally, they go exploring and, perhaps, hunting.
I would not blame them for this, because this is the very nature of Servicemen and construction workers, tied up for many months at a time, perhaps for more than a year, in a remote area. All

1833
these matters have to be taken into consideration and particularly, as we will discuss later, the question of the labourers who would necessarily be brought in during the construction period.
The gist of this part of the argument is that during the construction period itself inevitably, whether we like it or not, and with the maximum good will on the part of the Ministry of Defence, habitat will be destroyed. Its uniqueness will go. My understanding is—my hon. Friend can confirm this—that, in deference to the views of the scientists, the Ministry of Defence has made a decision to concentrate its activities on the east part of South Island.
I would praise the Government for being flexible in this matter. They have not been rigid. I am not saying that hitherto the Government have been at all unreasonable to the scientists in their attitude. There is no criticism of the Government on this point. However, it is the view of the Royal Society, backed up by the American Academy of Scientists, possibly the two most distinguished scientific bodies in the Western world, that the decision to concentrate on South Island does not change the original view put forward by the Royal Society.
The Royal Society says that the proposition is still valid, that any installation will disturb the ecosystem. Besides, the east part of South Island, for which the installation is proposed, is the most interesting area of all. It is not the Champignon dense scrub area; it is the Platin open bush area. This question of the Platin open bush area is crucial. It is this area which contains the freshwater pools which, as I understand, would have to be filled in, with consequent destruction of the breeding grounds of the tortoises and many other animals.
My hon. Friend might argue also that, perhaps, an installation could be set up on West Island—I understand that this is a possibility—and West Island is less spoilt than the other islands. Here I draw attention to the paper which he and I had today from the Royal Society, headed, "Scientific Significance of Aldabra in the light of information from Phase 1 of the Royal Society Expedition". The Royal Society says that this is true, but to a very limited extent, and adds:
1834
"It is sometimes argued that because of the presence of the Settlement on West Island, with its woodcutting, fishing and turtling, Aldabra is already spoiled. This is true to a very limited extent, but the order of magnitude of disturbance is quite different from that elsewhere in the Indian Ocean. The fact that individual plants of certain pantropic weeds can be used as indicators of human interference at one or two places, whereas most other islands are over-run with them, shows that the Aldabra ecosystem is at present relatively stable and undisturbed. All the ecologically similar islands to Aldabra in the South-West Indian Ocean have been ruined by guano digging during the last 50 years."
I should have thought—I am guessing here—that the fact that the Seychellois, the people of the Seychelles, have not been successful in colonising the island really disposes of the argument that there will be destruction anyway. The idea that if we do not go and protect the island, there will be destruction from fishermen or intruders from other islands does not hold water. In examining the matter in detail, this is an important argument for my right hon. Friend to bear in mind.
It is fortunate that tonight I have the opportunity to deploy the case properly, as decisions such as those on Aldabra cannot be taken on the basis of broad generalisation.
Then there is the question of the frigate birds. Here, I personally do not go so far as some of the ornithologists who have written to the Press. My understanding is that the frigate birds will create problems. These problems could, perhaps, be partially overcome, though I should hate them to be overcome in the same way as the Americans on Midway—disgracefully, in my view—have tried to eliminate the albatross population of the Central Pacific. The situation would very much depend on thermal conditions, but my understanding is that the habits of the frigate birds are such that they could not be relied on to be at a particular spot at a particular time of year—it would depend on weather conditions—and there would, therefore. be grave difficulty and danger to our pilots.
There is also the other difficulty, of which my hon. Friend is aware, that the frigate birds go away when they are young and return as mature birds. Whatever happens in this situation, therefore, the frigate birds would be returning each year for five or six years, so that there

1835
would be aircraft danger for a very long time. If we are talking of a time span of five or six years before flying and approach flying is safe, this seems to me, in a sense, to vitiate the argument on Aldabra as a whole, because it must be seen in the context of my right hon. Friend's whole defence policy and the timing of withdrawal from the Middle and Far East. We will be out of Sharjah and Bahrein before the last annual crop of frigate birds has returned.
Further discussion of the frigate birds would, perhaps, not be particularly useful, save to say that the Royal Society and the National Academy of Sciences reject the argument of Sir Dermot Boyle in this matter.
I think that we also have time to deal with another argument of Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Dermot Boyle. I make no apologies for doing so, because when I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence at the beginning of the controversy some months ago he replied very crisply that he thought that the counter to the arguments I put had been admirably summarised in The Times by Sir Dermot Boyle. Therefore, I can only assume that the arguments Sir Dermot deployed in The Times represent, in a sense, the Defence Department's arguments, and it is legitimate that I should try to deal with them.
Sir Dermot argued that, far from being a hindrance to science, the base will give access to Aldabra to scientists who have never had it before. I understand that he argues that, far from being bad from the scientists' point of view, the base is a good thing.
The answer is that during the construction period the ecosystem will be destroyed. The whole ecological system will be irretrievably harmed. For many of us it is not basically a question of preserving the rail, the tortoise or a breed of turtle. Much the most important aspect is the question of disturbing the total habitat.
Perhaps the real answer crisply put to Sir Dermot Boyle's arguments is to be found in paragraph 3 of the Royal Society's latest paper, which says:
"Future scientific study of Aldabra depends on its remaining undisturbed. The disturbance
1836
during construction will be so great that meaningful work in many areas will be no longer possible. By the time the RAF station is operational the ecology will have been damaged irreversibly. The RAF will certainly keep alive the tortoises as a species, and perhaps even the ibis and the rail, and it will doubtless try to live with the frigate birds; but preservation of the more obvious and larger animals is not what the Royal Society case is about. Large numbers of alien in vertebrates and weeds will certainly arrive, and the massive habitat disturbance of the construction phase will aid their rapid spread: hence changes in the ecosystem cannot be prevented. The fact that if the base is built then access will be easier for scientists is thus irrelevant as an argument in its favour."
This should be understood by the Defence Department when it makes up its mind.
Another aspect is the question of cost. You see, I am not sure at all that the scientists' case is the strongest argument against Aldabra. It may well be that the military case would come in for more criticism from many of us, than even the scientific case. But before becoming critical, I should like to pay tribute to the Royal Navy Hydrographical Department and the officers and men of H.M.S. "Vidal", who have shown nothing but the greatest helpfulness to the expeditions and have gained the affection of the British and American scientists involved. I hope that the Royal Navy will develop a continuing interest in the development of the marine sciences. That is a great future rôle for the Royal Navy, which has a big part to play in the development of oceanography. I should like to see it taking part in an international marine science programme.
I come back to Aldabra and turn to the arguments advanced by Gaymer, of Bristol University, and others. The first on cost is the question of rock. I should like a very full answer at some period from the Ministry of Defence about how it proposes to quarry rock which is covered with tough scrub or tall mangrove. The imagination of those of us who know this kind of area boggles at the thought of the cost of such an operation. How could heavy machinery be used on such a pitted surface where trees penetrate freely into the rock? It would be a massive quarrying operation and vastly expensive in terms of equipment.
I should like to know whether any costing has been done. I should also

1837
like to know how many labourers are thought to be necessary for the job, where they would come from and how long the job would take. Detailed questions of this sort must be put to substantiate the belief of myself and a number of others that when a figure of £20 million is mentioned for this project one could multiply it by five. This is the sort of operation that escalates and makes Ministers' hearts sink. I think that it is only by pressing home examples such as the sheer difficulty of mining rock in these extremely difficult circumstances that one can substantiate the difficulties of cost and bring home to the Chancellor what he is letting himself in for.
My understanding is that the mining of rock cannot take place below sea level. Considering that the highest point in Aldabra is 20 feet and that the average is 15 feet, in order to get the quantity of rock needed to prepare the anchorage in an efficient way one would have to mine and quarry a very considerable part of the island, and on present plans this would be precisely in the Platin area about which the Royal Society is most worried. That is, I think, a very powerful point that has to be answered at some stage. The quarrying operation when the average height is 15 feet will be enormously expensive, and I would say perhaps dangerous and impracticable. Anyhow, it vitiates the argument that one can have a small area cut off in order to preserve what the scientists want to preserve.
From this follows the question of the creation of the anchorage. Part of the difficulty is the damming of the lagoon, the main channel to the sea, which I understand is an essential part of the project. It is 600 yards wide and 40 feet deep, the currents are formidable and unpredictable, and the amount of rock that would be needed for this kind of operation—which would he difficult enough in Western Europe, let alone in a remote atoll in the Indian Ocean—would be enormous.
I have some engineering experience in these matters. I have seen what the French are doing at Rance in Northern France, and even there with all the technological capacity of modern France, and on the French north-west coast, it is extremely difficult to undertake this kind of operation. Also, the tides and currents in Aldabra are very formidable, and
1838
the ocean is vicious. In these circumstances, if the job is to be done at all, which I might doubt, the costs will be absolutely enormous. Anyhow, what size of tanker will be used to bring fuel, and what will the draught be?
I am also extremely interested in costs, as one who is concerned with modern aircraft, particularly variable geometry aircraft. If we are to have aircraft approaching the atoll we must have markers. I questioned Dr. Stoddard, the leader of the expedition, on this, and he said he thought there would be no difficulty on the southern approach, but as one approaches from the north, which may be necessary because of the formidable trade winds, it was far from clear how one would get the markers that would be needed for any kind of air strip.
I understand also that the ocean gets deeper dramatically there and, therefore, that setting out markers in deep ocean—markers necessary because of the fiecre trade wind—is again a highly technical and expensive operation. It is this sort of thing which, if it is to be done, makes me believe that the sum we are talking about is not £20 million, as has been mentioned by the Defence Ministry, but more like £100 million. It really is necessary, when one has the opportunity to go into this kind of detail, to substantiate what might be thought to be an outrageous claim by an ill-informed private Member. I have learned that to hope to be listened to on defence, one has to be detailed and clear-minded.
We have talked about cost and science. The next question I have to raise is strategy. With the best will in the world and in the context of the new policy of withdrawing from east of Suez in the mid-1970s, I find it difficult to see why this base is needed at all. It could be, and perhaps my hon. Friend can enlighten us, for the Far East and Singapore. It could also, I suppose, be for the Middle East and perhaps he will be explicit on the question of why one needs Aldabra in the Indian Ocean as a cover for withdrawal from the Middle East.
Perhaps my hon. Friend will also say something about the time scale involved, because some of us think that the withdrawal from Sharjar and Bahrein will

1839
precede the establishment of any kind of facilities on Aldabra.
I must confess that I am rather confused about this. I am not clear whether we are talking about a military base, or about a staging post, and I am not sure that the confusion is my fault. I think that there has been a lot of double talk and double think on this part of the issue. So perhaps my hon. Friend can clear up the matter precisely what it is that we are talking about and will let me know whether I am wrong in suggesting that it is a base, possibly with future influence in Africa considerations in mind, or a staging post, undefended.
While not for a moment conceding that a base is needed at all I ask, "Why Aldabra?" I understand that the Island of Assumption is totally unsuitable and that there is the possibility of using Cosmoledo. I ask simply" Why not Cosmoledo, which has already been ruined for scientific purpose?" I do not concede in the first place that a base is necessary, but while we are probing deeply into this matter my hon. Friend might wish to say something about Cosmoledo.
There is the other question related to this. Even granted that we need some kind of a staging post for operations for Singapore and Australia, why do not we go west about rather than east about? Of course, there are likely to be difficutlies in the Middle East but why do not we in this situation go via the United States?
Since my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary referred me to the arguments of Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Dermot Boyle, I must ask whether my hon. Friend really believes Sir Dermot's contention that facilities in the United States would be too congested to meet this kind of operation?
Heaven forbid that this operation to protect Australia should ever be mounted, but, if it were, would it not attract some kind of priority? Or is it envisaged that we should go ahead with this kind of major operation in Singapore or Australia without the connivance of the United States? If British forces quickly had to be ferried to the help of Australia and Singapore, would that not assume a situation—which I would not necessarily grant—which would involve the Chinese and be of global consequence, when
1840
British power would be marginal and American power very important? If China attacked Australia, the only conceivable situation in which Australian forces would need British forces, the United States would be at action stations, and would certainly clear the way for British troops going to the Far East. Sir Dermot should be ashamed of woolly thinking. Arguments of this kind have to be faced up to and I am glad of the opportuntiy to put them in detail rather than too glibly.
From there one goes on to matters connected with the Foreign Office. It has been argued that the British are very uncomfortable about Aldabra, but that it is all part of a package deal with the United States. This proposition should be denied if it is not true. We have been in contact with the American Academy of Sciences. Of course, I understand that the American Academy of Sciences is in the same relation to the American Government as the Royal Society is to the British Government. The American Academy of Sciences states that it has succeeded in persuading the United States Defence Department to press the United Kingdom for an alternative staging post or base.
The proposition put to me is that the Pentagon is not really blameworthy on this part of the issue; that it is United Kingdom intransigence and the United Kingdom decision, made against the wishes of the experts from the United States Academy, the Smithsonian Institute and the United States Pentagon. I want to be clear. Is it the British Government who are being awkward on Aldabra and saying to the scientists that they will not change, or is it the Americans?
I am making no kind of allegation, but I also want to be clear about the proposition that the Americans have offered to pay to the British the difference in cost between a base on Aldabra and a base on some other atoll that is already spoiled. If it is true, it should be admitted. If it is not true, it should be denied. I want to be clear about the attitude of the United States Government. Have they in any way promised to make up the finance that we would supposedly lose by going to some other atoll than Aldabra for scientific purposes?
I gather from sources originating in the American Academy of Sciences that

1841
the United States Government are pressing the British for a delay of a year to enable certain scientific inquiries to be completed. Is this true or not? Are the United States Government pressing for more time? If they are what is the British responsibility and why?
That is really the Foreign Office responsibility, to whom I gave notice, and again I ask my hon. Friend to question the Foreign Secretary and his Department on these matters and to tell him that there are many American scientists—I will not detail their names—who are extremely concerned according to the statements which have come from the President of the American Academy of Sciences. I shall, naturally, send a copy of my hon. Friend's reply to Don Hornig, Don Price, Glenn Seaborg, Congressman Reuss and Vice-President Humphrey, Chairman of the United States Marine Science Committee, who I met recently in Washington.
On the responsibility of the Commonwealth Relations Office, I would like to be clear about precisely what is the nature of the agreements with Mauritius. What is the financial relationship with Mauritius? A figure of £3 million has been mentioned. It has been put that the agreement with Mauritius has been completed, that we cannot let her down now that certain decisions have been taken and. therefore, notwithstanding the new evidence in the matter, and changes of defence policy, the machine cannot change gear.
It has been argued that the British Government machine cannot change gear on this matter once certain undertakings have been given to Mauritius of help both with finance and employment. This may be a false trail—I hope it is—but I would like to be clear about the suggestion that there is a certain inflexibility in the British Government machine.
At this point, on Commonwealth Office responsibility, I wish to make reference to India, and in this connection I quote from The Times of 6th April. Under the heading, "India opposes plan for sea bases: British purchase of islands", this appeared:
"Delhi, April 6th.
"India will try to mobilise opinion against British plans to buy some islands in the Indian Ocean and use them for defence purposes; Mr. Chagla, the Minister of External Affairs,
1842
said in Parliament today. He said India would take the matter up at the United Nations, and had made representations to the British High Commissioner here. Britain plans to buy the Farquhar and Desroches Islands, in the Seychilles, and the Chago Archipelago. Mr. Chagla said that Britain had stated that it had no intention of setting up military bases or stationing foreign troops on the islands. The idea was to give only transit, staging and refuelling facilities to British and American aircraft going to the Far East. India opposed the establishment of military bases in the area because they might lead to increased tension in the area, he added."
That seems to be a matter of considerable consequence, as I think my hon. Friend beside me, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) will agree. Are we really to get ourselves into the position where the most populous country in the Commonwealth solemnly takes us to the United Nations because we are infuriating her by setting up bases in the Indian Ocean? To incur the displeasure of the Indians and of other nations on the Asian mainland in order to fulfil potential obligations to Singapore or Australia seems to be an extremely questionable policy. I do not believe it for one moment, but is it suggested that we should please over 4 million people in Singapore and, at the same time, risk deeply offending Delhi, Karachi and many others representing hundreds of millions?
If The Times has it wrong, let us be told, but there is an obligation on the Government at an early date to make it clear what representations have been sent to them from Delhi and, if those representations are against the establishment of staging posts and bases, what answer has been sent?
If we create bad feeling in India and other parts of Southern Asia over the establishment of these bases, which some do not think worth while, many of us would then become extremely critical of the Government. I hope that there will be a full explanation of what has transpired between Delhi and London, what information has been given to the Indians about our intentions, and what we intend to do. It would be courteous to say that I shall be sending a copy of this reply to Mrs. Gandhi, with whom I had an interview in Delhi last year.
Here, I want to introduce another point. When I think of £20, £50 or £100 million being spent for highly questionable strategic purposes at a time when,

1843
according to the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office and many others, we are not doing nearly enough for the development of the developing countries, when I think of people starving in Bihar, and find my country involved in this kind of expenditure on Aldabra I am almost speechless. This is not my idea of the actions of a Socialist Administration.
Among other questions in relation to the Commonwealth which might be raised, is there any truth in the proposition that we will have a military base on Aldabra, and that its purpose is to influence decisions and have a certain effect in Central and Southern Africa? Rightly or wrongly—in my view, rightly—the Government have already taken certain decisions in these matters. I thought that the Government had made up their minds that there would not be military interference in Central and Southern Africa. Therefore, my hon. Friend should take this opportunity to make it clear that Aldabra's purpose is not to continue British influence from afar off the East African coast. If it is a question of influence, I merely content myself with saying that apparently other powers do not require this kind of influence.
I propose now to examine our relationship with Australia, to which I have an emotional attachment. Most of my family live and work there. There are far more Dalyells in the Sydney telephone directory than there are in Scotland. Like many others, I have an emotional relationship with Australia, but does it do the Australians any good—and, certainly, the younger generation in Australia do not think so—to be in a position of being beholden, or seeming to be beholden, to British military power?
It is absurd to think that Australia would be attacked by any Power in Asia other than China. I do not believe that China would do this, but the idea that Indonesia would attack Australia is grotesque. I therefore say that the whole thinking behind this staging post idea is out of tune with the 'sixties, let alone the 'seventies. It lacks reality.
Suppose, for example, that there was Chinese aggression requiring British intervention. I must repeat: Would not it be a
1844
situation in which America would inevitably be involved, and British power would be only marginal? It seems to me that the basis on which, from a military and defence point of view, this staging post is required is extremely and deeply misguided.
Other Departments are involved. For example, there is the Treasury, to which I also gave notice of the debate. I would like a representative from that Department to go to Aldabra, either on the "Vidal", or in some other way, to examine these matters on the ground, to see the location for himself, because it is the opinion of those who have been there that a Treasury man, having examined the nature of the propositions on the ground, would bring back a deeply unfavourable report. If they had time to reflect on the facts, I wonder what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs would have to say. Tthey might have a fit at the proposed financial obligation.
Let us consider a simple comparison. In The Times this morning we were told that plasma physics and fusion research was to be run down. This was a question of £4 million. In Aldabra, on the Ministry's figures, we are talking about five times the value of the plasma physics and fission research on which our energy requirements in the 'eighties and 'nineties might depend, so one has to compare what is being spent on this proposition with what is being spent on many vital areas of our economy and areas of research.
To the Ministry of Public Building and Works, I simply say that it has not done its surveying job properly. I gave it notice of my Adjournment debate points. There really is no basis for any kind of an estimate. It is true that the Ministry has done some minor surveying, but can my hon. Friend explain the basis on which this figure of £20 million was reached? I simply do not believe that there is any worth-while basis at all. As a former member of the Public Accounts Committee, I think that in the near future the Ministry of Public Building and Works should "come clean" about precisely what its surveyors have done, and to what extent it thinks that this is some kind of a basis for producing figures.

1845
I turn, finally, to the words of Sir Julian Huxley, who said:
"It is greatly to be hoped that Britain can solve her current defence problems without invading Aldabra, and that in consequence she will save for prosperity this valuable asset in the Indian Ocean, second only in scientific importance as a living laboratory of evolution to the islands which Equador and the Charles Darwin Foundation are seeking to save in the Pacific."
Most of these things have a habit of growing very fast and far beyond the original intention.
This subject should be debated by the whole House before a final decision is reached. As I said at the beginning, it would be better if there were a Select Committee of Defence to probe these detailed and difficult matters. I have had the opportunity tonight which seldom comes to Members of Parliament—without keeping any colleagues out of the debate, which we all hesitate to do—to put forward in great detail some of the considerations surrounding Aldabra.
I would have hoped that there would be many opportunities for other hon. Members, in this very complicated, technical age in which we live, to be able to make the kind of probing inquisitorial speech that I have made—not slamming the Government before any decision has been made, but asking some awkward questions to which there may be satisfactory answers but which no one can say ought not to have been asked.
I thank the House for its patience.
9.10 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Merlyn Rees): My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has a great interest in defence, and I know that, for a longer period, he has had a great interest in science. He combined those two subjects tonight. He will know that it is not an anodyne remark when I say that I listened with great interest to his points.
I want to make it abundantly clear at the outset—and this to a large degree limits my remarks this evening—that no decision has yet been made whether or not to use the island of Aldabra for defence purposes. As my right hon.
1846
Friend the Secretary of State for Defence assured the House on 5th July, the scientific issues at stake will be taken carefully into account in reaching any decision.
Since July an expedition has been sent to Aldabra, consisting partly of scientists sponsored by the Royal Society and the Smithsonian Institute and partly of Government representatives. My precise responsibility is for the Royal Air Force, but I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend's tribute to the crew of H.M.S. "Vidal" and the regard that those men now have in the eyes of the scientists who were there with them.
My hon. Friend quoted from a letter which he has received today. I am not dogmatic about this, but I imagine that it is the report that we were waiting for and which we have also received today. My right hon. Friend has not had time to take it into account, but it will be taken into account. Until that decision is taken, my right hon. Friend will not be in a position to make a full statement on the very proper questions raised by my hon. Friend this evening. When a decision is announced the House will have an opportunity to discuss the whole subject.
I would tell my hon. Friend—knowing his great interest in the procedures of the House—that whatever turns up as a correct method of discussing the major issues of the day, whether in science or in defence, eventually the buck stops on the desk of the Secretary of State for Defence, and it is his decision and that of the Government as to what policy shall be followed.
This debate, when and if a decision in favour of Aldabra is taken, will take place and, subject to this situation and to the reservation that we have not yet finished our investigation into the whole matter, there are one or two comments that I might make at this stage upon the questions raised by my hon. Friend.
I say straight away that he raised questions concerning the responsibilities of the Commonwealth Office—B.I.O.T., which was set up in 1966 and on relationships with India—which are not my responsibility. I am sure that he would agree that it would be more appropriate to put these questions at another time to another Department. It would be wrong for me to comment on them.

1847
First, with regard to the need for an airfield at Aldabra, this is one point that my right hon. Friend has to take into account in eventually reaching a decision. He has to take it into account in the context of defence policy as well as—with other of his right hon. Friends—the scientific side of things.
The case of Aldabra derives from the policy set out in the last part of chapter 3 of the Defence White Paper, 1967—the Supplementary Statement of July. My hon. Friend has referred to this tonight and I do not want to go through the two or three paragraphs, which we have all read. The bones of it, however, were that
"We plan to withdraw altogether from our bases in Singapore and Malaysia in the middle 1970s".
It goes on to make a qualification about timing and then says:
"Meanwhile, our plans must be firm enough to ensure that we have the forces we need to match our remaining commitments … and flexible enough to enable us to respond to changes in local circumstances."
In that context, it finishes by saying
"We are continuing to examine the possibility of using facilities in Australia and of making a new staging airfield in the British Indian Ocean Territory."
This is what my right hon. Friend is doing and is why I cannot tonight give a firm answer; no decision has been taken.
One of the difficulties concerning the "base" question is that over the last 20 years we tend to have used the American term "base" in place of "airfield". Everything nowadays tends to be called a "base", whereas in the other Services it would be called an aerodrome or airfield.
As to the "base" question, there would be no intention of stationing strike or operational forces there. Facilities would not be adequate for this. Therefore, it would not be a base any more than Gan. A base is a place where operational forces are resident and from the logistic support which they need for operations, and which is important in the amount of land required, can be provided. Aldabra would not be in this category. It would in no sense be a substitute for, say, Singapore or anywhere else which is a base.
Among the other questions which my hon. Friend brought to my notice tonight is that of the possibility of alternative
1848
routes to the Far East or. in the short term, to whatever one calls that part of the South Indian Ocean beyond the Middle East. One of the problems that my right hon. Friend has to face—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It will help if the Minister addresses the Chair. This will help the reporters.
Mr. Rees: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. The problem here is that, unlike the scientific aspect—I would not go into a field about which I know relatively little—political developments are unpredictable. We have been denied routes which we have used for some time in the past, and my right hon. Friend has to take this into account.
My hon. Friend mentioned the question of the westabout route, the other way round the world. I have just been to the Far East in the context of the rundown there in the years to come, and I came back along the westabout route. That route is a factor which my right hon. Friend has to take into account. The question of congestion is a real problem in that part of the world and in the airfields concerned, particularly at present. I say no more than that. It is certainly not true to say that the congestion argument should not be taken into account.
There is also the question of alternatives to Aldabra. In the Defence Department, on the Royal Air Force side in particular, we have to take into account the range of aircraft as of now, the range of aircraft that will be available in the mid-1970s, the type of aircraft and the geology of part of the island which might be used. My hon. Friend tonight raised issues in terms of geology of the part of the island to which he was referring—Platin—which will also have to be taken into account. The geography, the winds, the runway and alignment will have to be considered.
One point, not perhaps in context, is that I have a map of the island, and on this question of approach lighting, referred to by my hon. Friend, I am advised that it is perfectly possible, in the context of the amount of land mass available in that part of the island, where perhaps we will be putting a runway.
We have looked at other alternatives. Perhaps my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not go into them in great detail tonight and give the precise answers. I

1849
can assure him that we have looked at Farquhar, at the Cosmoledos, at Assumption, and the number of things that one has to take into account before deciding to spend the sums of money envisaged in that apart of the world. We have looked at Astove, St. Pierre, Mahé and so on. All these places have been taken into account in recent months, and not finally decided upon yet, because no decision has been taken.
Any question of arriving at a precise cost figure of £20 million or anything else cannot be the case, because the cost analysis has not yet been completed, for the very good reasons put forward by my hon. Friend tonight. There was a report from a member of the M.P.B.W., who visited the island and we have to take account of his report, and the possible cost effect of it. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that recently it has been decided that a change could be made to the East channel where it would result, as I understand it, in no damming. I accept that this makes a great difference to the effect on the ecology of the island.
We would require in this staging post—not base—a long runway for long-range tanker and transport aircraft. We have to take into account the fact that the climate in that part of the world makes it necessary to have a longer runway than one would have in other parts of the world. We would need berthing facilities to accommodate 20,000 ton tankers—they will not come much smaller in the years to come—because by the very nature of things, one would need to refuel directly from the U.K.
These are briefly, and not in detail, the facilities that we would require. As for the scientific considerations, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given an undertaking to the Royal Society that if the project were to go forward the scientific bodies concerned would be fully and continuously consulted on the way in which it would be carried out.
I know that my hon. Friend's main purpose tonight was to air the problem, to quiz and to probe. It would be impossible to go into all the questions he has raised, about the possible steps for building a wall around the airfield to keep out the giant tortoises, artificial water-holes and so on. Any effective protection
1850
of the ecosystem would depend upon the vigorous control of all personnel upon the island. All personnel, who would not be there for long periods in any event, would be under the control of the R.A.F. In this respect I would recommend my hon. Friend, who seems to have a large number of his relations in Australia despite the fact that he comes from Scotland, to have a look at St. Kilda. Military facilities were placed there some time ago and there has been very close co-operation with the nature conservancy in that part of the world.
I have dealt with the question of cost, though briefly, and I assure my hon. Friend that the cost factor will be taken firmly into account.
My hon. Friend referred to frigate birds. In the R.A.F. we are well aware of the danger of bird strikes. The point he made about birds returning for a period of years must be taken into account by us. It must be considered in coming to a decision about whether or not to go to Aldabra and in the wider consideration that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must have in mind in deciding where this staging post should be established, if a staging post is eventually necessary. As the White Paper stated, this investigation is being carried out, but I repeat that my right hon. Friend has not yet made a decision. He has been, and still is, in contact with the scientists. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of Her Majesty's Government being absolutely firm on Aldabra and other Governments wishing to go elsewhere. A decision has not yet been reached about whether or not to go to Aldabra.
Mr. Dalyell: Is my hon. Friend in a position to say whether The Times report about the great concern of the Indian Government and the proposition that they would take the matter to the United Nations is accurate or inaccurate?
Mr. Rees: I read that report, but I am not in a position to do what my hon. Friend asks. I can only say that B.I.O.T. was set up last year, although I have no knowledge of any follow-up from that. In the best tradition of the House, I advise my hon. Friend that this is not my responsibility and that he

1851
should take the matter up with the Department concerned.
My hon. Friend has raised a vital issue tonight, but I repeat that no decision has yet been taken. The list of problems he raised is formidable, both on the scientific and military side. They will all be borne in mind by my right hon. Friend, in terms of both economic
1852
and foreign policy. Eventually my right hon. Friend and the Government will have to make a decision on this matter, but I repeat that, as yet, no decision has been taken. I assure my hon. Friend that all the points he has raised tonight will be taken into account.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Nine o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Hunterston B Nuclear Generating Station (Employment)
  Hunterston B Nuclear Generating Station (Employment)
  Royal Prerogative of Mercy
  Royal Prerogative of Mercy
  Highland Development Board (Commercial Undertakings)
  Highland Development Board (Commercial Undertakings)
  Housing (Completions 1967)
  Housing (Completions 1967)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Local Authorities (Boundaries and Functions)
  Local Authorities (Boundaries and Functions)
  Farm Improvement Scheme (Malpractices)
  Farm Improvement Scheme (Malpractices)
  Store Cattle (Prices)
  Store Cattle (Prices)
  Eggs (Producers' Prices)
  Eggs (Producers' Prices)
  Beef (Producers' Prices)
  Beef (Producers' Prices)
  Fatstock Guarantee Scheme 1967–68
  Fatstock Guarantee Scheme 1967–68
  Pipe Bands (Grants)
  Pipe Bands (Grants)
  Fat Lamb (Producers' Prices)
  Fat Lamb (Producers' Prices)
  Highland Transport Board
  Highland Transport Board
  Emigration
  Emigration
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Countryside Commission (Headquarters)
  Countryside Commission (Headquarters)
  Hill Sheep Farmers (Income)
  Hill Sheep Farmers (Income)
  Sugar Beet (Acreage)
  Sugar Beet (Acreage)
  Primary Schools (Part-Time Education)
  Primary Schools (Part-Time Education)
  Tourist Industry
  Tourist Industry
  New School Places
  New School Places
  Prescription Charges (Abolition Cost)
  Prescription Charges (Abolition Cost)
  Meat and Livestock Commission (Headquarters)
  Meat and Livestock Commission (Headquarters)
  New Scientific and Technological Library
  New Scientific and Technological Library
  Perth City By-Pass
  Perth City By-Pass
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Defence Cuts
  Defence Cuts
  Firing Range, Shoeburyness
  Firing Range, Shoeburyness
  British Army (Unit Reductions)
  British Army (Unit Reductions)
  F111 Aircraft
  F111 Aircraft
  Unison 67
  Unison 67
  Mozambique Channel (British Naval Patrols)
  Mozambique Channel (British Naval Patrols)
  Royal Navy (Members of Parliament)
  Royal Navy (Members of Parliament)
  British Regimental Uniforms (Overseas Exhibitions)
  British Regimental Uniforms (Overseas Exhibitions)
  Anglo-American Offset Agreement
  Anglo-American Offset Agreement
  Durham Light Infantry
  Durham Light Infantry
  H.M. Dockyards
  H.M. Dockyards
  Armed Services (Civil Personnel)
  Armed Services (Civil Personnel)
  Aldabra Island
  Aldabra Island
  Aircraft Carrier "Leviathan"
  Aircraft Carrier "Leviathan"
  Sterling Engineering Company
  Sterling Engineering Company
  Unidentified Flying Objects
  Unidentified Flying Objects
  Staff College (Entry Opportunities)
  Staff College (Entry Opportunities)
  British Forces, Germany
  British Forces, Germany
  Guardsmen (Vice Ring)
  Guardsmen (Vice Ring)
  Jerusalem War Cemetery
  Jerusalem War Cemetery
  Maidstone Air Training Corps Band (Labour Party Fete)
  Maidstone Air Training Corps Band (Labour Party Fete)
  Arms (Overseas Sales)
  Arms (Overseas Sales)
  R.A.F. Brize Norton (Flights over Oxford)
  R.A.F. Brize Norton (Flights over Oxford)
  H.M.S. "Caprice"
  H.M.S. "Caprice"
  British Army (Civilian Projects)
  British Army (Civilian Projects)
  Armed Services (Young Recruits)
  Armed Services (Young Recruits)
  s.s. "Richard Montgomery"
  s.s. "Richard Montgomery"
TRANSPORT
  Public Transport (Children's Concessionary Fares)
  Public Transport (Children's Concessionary Fares)
  Driving Licences (Review)
  Driving Licences (Review)
  Trolley-Bus Depots
  Trolley-Bus Depots
  Unlicensed Motor Vehicles (Traffic Wardens)
  Unlicensed Motor Vehicles (Traffic Wardens)
  Ice Cream Vans (Accidents)
  Ice Cream Vans (Accidents)
  Motor Vehicles (Safety Standards)
  Motor Vehicles (Safety Standards)
  Hovercraft (England-Northern Ireland Service)
  Hovercraft (England-Northern Ireland Service)
ROADS
  Crash Barriers
  Crash Barriers
  M1 (Solus Filling Station)
  M1 (Solus Filling Station)
  Preston By-Pass (Link with M6)
  Preston By-Pass (Link with M6)
  Traffic Census
  Traffic Census
  Mechanical Traffic Recorders (Reading)
  Mechanical Traffic Recorders (Reading)
  Humber Bridge
  Humber Bridge
  A30 (London Airport Freight Terminal)
  A30 (London Airport Freight Terminal)
  Airport Road Links
  Airport Road Links
  M1 (Lighting)
  M1 (Lighting)
  Thorne By-Pass
  Thorne By-Pass
  Swing Bridge, Thorne
  Swing Bridge, Thorne
  M5 (Oldbury-Great Barr Section)
  M5 (Oldbury-Great Barr Section)
  A45 (Speed Limit)
  A45 (Speed Limit)
  A316 (Footbridge)
  A316 (Footbridge)
  New Construction and Improvement (Expenditure)
  New Construction and Improvement (Expenditure)
PORTS
  Tyne
  Tyne
RAILWAYS
  Oxford Station (Closure)
  Oxford Station (Closure)
AVIATION
  Aldergrove Airport (Jet Aircraft)
  Aldergrove Airport (Jet Aircraft)
  Pilots (Hourly Rates and Earnings)
  Pilots (Hourly Rates and Earnings)
  Munich Air Disaster (Inquiry)
  Munich Air Disaster (Inquiry)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Bankruptcies
  Bankruptcies
  Tariff Preferences (Pakistan)
  Tariff Preferences (Pakistan)
  Companies Act (Bank Profits)
  Companies Act (Bank Profits)
  Arms (Export Licences for South Arabia)
  Arms (Export Licences for South Arabia)
  Board of Trade Advisory Committee (Applications)
  Board of Trade Advisory Committee (Applications)
  Edge Tools (Exports)
  Edge Tools (Exports)
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  Derelict Land (Grants)
  Derelict Land (Grants)
  Chipboard (Imports from Eastern Europe)
  Chipboard (Imports from Eastern Europe)
  Importers (Bridging Loans)
  Importers (Bridging Loans)
  Canada and United States (Imports and Exports)
  Canada and United States (Imports and Exports)
  Detergents (Standard Quantities)
  Detergents (Standard Quantities)
  Arms Industry (Alternative Employment)
  Arms Industry (Alternative Employment)
  Household Goods and Food (Price and Weight)
  Household Goods and Food (Price and Weight)
  Anglo-Eastern European Trade
  Anglo-Eastern European Trade
  Michael Colliery, Fife (Redundant Miners)
  Michael Colliery, Fife (Redundant Miners)
  Reading (Noise Measurement)
  Reading (Noise Measurement)
  Centre for Interfirm Comparison
  Centre for Interfirm Comparison
SHIPPING
  Trawler "St. Finbarr" (Inquiry)
  Trawler "St. Finbarr" (Inquiry)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Koolopop Lemonade (Cost of Price Investigation)
  Koolopop Lemonade (Cost of Price Investigation)
  Horses and Ponies (Export Regulations)
  Horses and Ponies (Export Regulations)
  Fisheries Review
  Fisheries Review
  EL SALVADOR (TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT)
  EL SALVADOR (TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT)
  TURKISH DECREE NO. 6/8458
  TURKISH DECREE NO. 6/8458
  GREECE (UNITED NATIONS MEETINGS)
  GREECE (UNITED NATIONS MEETINGS)
  ADEN AND SOUTH ARABIA
  ADEN AND SOUTH ARABIA
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Anglo-European Communities (Revenue)
  Anglo-European Communities (Revenue)
  Standard Industrial Classification
  Standard Industrial Classification
  Government Contracts (Scotland)
  Government Contracts (Scotland)
  Scottish Manufacturers (Free Depreciation Survey)
  Scottish Manufacturers (Free Depreciation Survey)
  Selective Employment Tax and Income Tax
  Selective Employment Tax and Income Tax
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Technological Advances (Scotland)
  Technological Advances (Scotland)
  Light Programme (Change of Wavelength)
  Light Programme (Change of Wavelength)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Waiting List
  Waiting List
  Phantom Aircraft
  Phantom Aircraft
TECHNOLOGY
  Motor Industry
  Motor Industry
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Standing Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances
  Standing Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances
  Motor Vehicles (Prosecutions for Noise Offences)
  Motor Vehicles (Prosecutions for Noise Offences)
  Police Officers (Ratio of Population)
  Police Officers (Ratio of Population)
  Legal Costs (Acquitted Persons)
  Legal Costs (Acquitted Persons)
  Corporal Punishment
  Corporal Punishment
  Zoos (Licensing)
  Zoos (Licensing)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (CATERING STAFF PAY AWARD)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (CATERING STAFF PAY AWARD)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  National Board for Prices and Incomes (References)
  National Board for Prices and Incomes (References)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers (Pay Awards)
  Teachers (Pay Awards)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Gypsies (Inquiry)
  Gypsies (Inquiry)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  H.M. Dockyard, Portsmouth
  H.M. Dockyard, Portsmouth
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Strikes
  Strikes
  Agricultural Training Board
  Agricultural Training Board
WALES
  Road Expenditure 1970–71
  Road Expenditure 1970–71

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock; The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro

LORD EVANS OF HUNGERSHALL
Sir Benjamin Ifor Evans, Knight, having been created Baron Evans of Hungershall, of Hungershall in the Borough of Royal Tunbridge Wells, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Goodman and the Baroness Stocks.

BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE
Annie Patricia, wife of Richard Lord Llewelyn-Davies, having been created Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, of Hastoe in the County of Hertford, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Llewelyn-Davies and the Baroness Plummer.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

AFRICAN REFUGEES
2.28 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether an observer was sent to the Conference of African Governments and officials of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa held at Addis Ababa to consider the problem of African refugees.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government were represented at this Conference by a member of the British Embassy in Addis Ababa, who was registered as a "country participant"
1646
rather than as an "observer". The Ambassador attended the opening session.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he appreciates that I welcome that reply? Has any report of this Conference been received? In view of the fact that there are now 750,000 refugees in Africa, and probably 2 million if one includes those in Nigeria, will the Government give the greatest possible help towards their settlement?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I share the noble Lord's implicit anxiety about the development of this really awful and large problem. The Conference closed only on October 18, and the full report has not yet been received. A final statement was issued, with a number of recommendations which are to be presented at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers for the Organisation of African Unity. None of these recommendations, I am informed, contains any specific request for action on the part of Her Majesty's Government. But I can undertake to the noble Lord that we shall give it careful consideration, and that this country, which has a very fine record in regard to refugees—we are the second largest contributor of refugee funds—will naturally be extremely sympathetic to this problem. If the noble Lord wants any further information I shall be happy to give him as much as I can, either privately or in the House. But this problem does not really impinge very directly on our responsibilities.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, again thanking my noble friend for that answer, may I, in view of the fact a number of Commonwealth countries are involved, ask whether co-operation will be taken with the Commonwealth Secretariat in dealing with this matter?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, that is an interesting suggestion. This particular Conference was confined to African countries, and obviously certain countries, such as Britain and France, had special interests. I cannot express a view on that suggestion, but I will see that it is noted.

IMMIGRATION CONTROL AND MEDICAL CENTRES
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to the complaints of the immigration officers in their staff magazine Bulletin, and the Home Office reply thereto, stating that only 1,339 individuals were denied entry out of 42,000 coming here in 1966; and to ask whether Her Majesty's Government will extend the number of medical centres—which have facilities for the medical tests referred to—so that speedy overnight vetting of debatable cases can be verified.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the noble Earl refers to an editorial in the immigration officers' staff association magazine. This contained a private expression of views and was not intended for outside publication. The editorial was not a well-balanced account of the problems arising in the field of immigration, and the Government do not agree with the views expressed in it. There are already adequate arrangements for prompt medical examination of cases where an immigrant's age is in doubt, but by no means all cases can be disposed of on the basis of medical evidence.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I have a supplementary question in regard to the number of medical centres. How many are there and what is the strength of the Civil Service staffs operating them?
LORD STONHAM: There are some forty ports of entry, including airports, and the total number of immigration officers, normally, is 660. That was the number last year. This number is augmented in the summer by a temporary increase of some 10 per cent., and the number of officers at the principal ports are: Heathrow, 225; Gatwick, 45; Dover, 94; Folkestone, 22; Southampton, 52; Harwich, 40. And I would inform the noble Earl that at every single
1648
one of the ports of entry there is available a medical inspector for immediate action in any case where such action is needed.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answer. May I ask the number of seaports? I have heard only five airports.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, in other words, there are forty points of entry, including the airports. So far as seaports are concerned, the number would be round about thirty.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, may I say, in relation to what the noble Lord has said, that this article should never have been printed or published and read by the public. Obviously, it represented the views held by the editor of the Bulletin. We tend to keep civil servants out of every kind of publicity, and that is quite right; but those views were obviously heard and were reported. They were allowed to go into the Bulletin, which is the paper which civil servants, particularly those in the immigration service, read.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I do not accept that, and there is no reason to believe that the views expressed in this private publication, by the editor, are representative of the views of immigrant officers as a whole. This was a private publication. It was most unfortunate that it leaked and became public. As the noble Earl is aware, it is the general view of Civil Service discipline that officials should not publish accounts of matters which are the responsibility of Ministers, and the editorial was not intended for outside publication.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, is it not evident that people are working under a sense of frustration, because they have not been given the tools they consider necessary for the job? Obviously, their frustration comes out somehow to the public. The public are supposed to look after their interests, and understand their difficulties.
LORD STONHAM: I do not accept that they have not been given the tools to do the job. I agree that there must be, inevitably, a good deal of frustration in a job of this kind, where immigration officers have the unenviable task of rejecting some of the people who want to

1649
come here because they do not conform with the rules governing admission and because of their understandable attempted evasion of those rules. A great many more people want to come here than we can properly admit, and it is a frustrating job when you have to reject some of them.

COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS: VOUCHER-HOLDERS' DEPENDANTS
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their vouching agents have been instructed, at the time of allotting the voucher to an immigrant, strictly to limit the number of his dependants subsequently allowed to join him here.]
LORD STONHAM: No, my Lords. The wife and children under 16 of a Commonwealth citizen who is resident in the United Kingdom have a statutory right to come here. Other dependants have no right of admission, although those within certain limited categories may be admitted, in the exercise of discretion, in accordance with the published instructions which my right honourable friend has issued to immigration officers.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, would not the Government reconsider the position which requires a potential immigrant to enter into his form of application the number of dependants whom he proposes to bring in later on? And, further, would not the Government consider adding the sum total of the immigrant and his dependants, and keeping them within the overall figure of immigrants who are allowed within that year?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, there can be no overall figure of the immigrants allowed in in any one year, because we do not know the total number of dependants still abroad who have a statutory right to come here; still less do we know the number who might wish to exercise that right in any particular year. There can be no question of an overall number. But when immigrants come here the immigration officers do inquire the number of
1650
their dependants abroad. Understandably, the information is not always reliable, and it is not processed. Therefore, we do not know the total numbers.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I should like to ask my last supplementary question. Is it not possible for the Government to say to vouching agents, "When you accept a person for voucher, will you find out what he has in the way of family"—that is, adopted sons, stepsons, double wives and I do not know what?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we do that already. We have been into this subject already, and the noble Earl has had this information. I will again send him a copy of the form which intending applicants for vouchers have to complete, from which he will see that we already obtain the information of which he speaks.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the Government's reply to my noble friend is wholly unsatisfactory? This is a question which is rapidly assuming alarming proportions in this country, and constitutes, in the view of a great number of people, a vital principle which continues to receive inadequate Government attention.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I cannot accept that it was an unsatisfactory reply, although the noble Lord is entitled to his opinion. I would remind him that this statutory right was derived from the 1962 Act, which was instituted by the previous Administration. It was thought satisfactory then, and is has been thought satisfactory since. We have made a considerable reduction in the number of voucher-holders. In fact, the number of immigrants who came in on vouchers last year was only 5,461, so inevitably in due course the number of dependants who come in is likely to fall.
2.40 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord who is speaking for the Government whether he will be good enough to cease saying that the Act that was passed in 1962 is necessarily perfect in all respects, and whether he will ask his colleagues in the Government to apply their minds to the importance of amending that Act in certain respects—an importance which is now very widely recognised?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I was not suggesting that the 1962 Act, or indeed any other Act, is perfect in all respects, but I was making the legitimate point that the present position is no new one. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and his Department, are indeed constantly applying their minds to this problem, and some administrative changes have been made. On this particular point of dependants coming over here to join husbands and fathers, we think that humanity really demands, and common sense requires, that they should be able to come over and be a family here, because that is the only way they can be properly integrated into our community.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, almost everybody would accept what the noble Lord has just said, but it is not the Question on the Paper. The Question on the Paper relates to people coming here in the future, and I hope the noble Lord will be good enough to address his mind to the possibility that, in granting permission to come here, the Government should take into consideration the total number of people who will be likely to come if a single voucher is issued to a person with many dependants.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I have already said—and of this the noble Lord must be aware—that when we admit a voucher-holder we are then aware of his stated number of dependants, but we do not know the total number of dependants who have an entitlement. We are constantly considering this question, but we have no present intention of destroying the statutory rights to which I have referred, and I think it would cause a very great deal of distress, and occasion a great deal of unfairness and injustice, if we did so.

VIETNAM: BRITISH POLICY
2.42 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is true, as reported,
1652
that members of the Royal Navy's combined operations force have been engaged in clearing obstructions in waterways on the coast of Vietnam to provide passage for American naval vessels.]
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, there is no truth in this report.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I welcome that statement, and the opportunity to make it in this House? May I ask him for an assurance that no British official personnel are used to assist either the Administration in Saigon or the training of forces in the Vietnam war?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord is not satisfied with the Answer I have already given. At the risk of going seriously out of order, I would say that I think the noble Lord was aware that Her Majesty's Government's policy of non-involvement in the Vietnam war is well known and does not need to be restated by me. And we have no intention of undertaking military operations of this or any other kind.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, in view of the almost world-wide publicity given to this statement, may I ask whether it is not surprising that the statement—a statement which apparently has no foundation—should have been published in this way?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. It is surprising, astonishing, and, I should have thought, highly irresponsible.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether there is any intention of sending this matter to the Press Council?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not think that that question arises directly from the Question on the Order Paper, but perhaps it does. I will see that the matter is considered. I am not familiar enough with the Press Council's responsibilities.

APPROVED SCHOOLS AND COURT LEES CLOSURE
2.44 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE rose to draw attention to the administration of approved schools, with particular reference to the closure of Court Lees School; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, we last discussed the approved school system at any length in March, 1960, following the report of Mr. Victor Durand into the grave disturbance at Carlton Approved School. In reading that debate over again during the weekend, I could not help reflecting that usually we find ourselves looking into this rather sad corner of our affairs only after something has gone rather wrong. That may be natural, but it tends to distort the mental picture which we make for ourselves of the approved schools system. Like all systems, it is not without its warts. But I, for one, speaking with some personal knowledge of these school, trust that this debate may at least help to dispel a too one-sided view. That is why, before turning to the particular case of Court Lees, I wish briefly to pass in review the general administration of our approved schools at this time.
Again, as I read the Durand Report I could not help reflecting on the progress made in many fields in the last seven years: the largest building programme of the approved school system ever seen, initiated under my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, and in large part carried through by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor; a considerable easement in acute pressure on places, familiar to many justices—too many disapproved of boys chasing too many approved places; an increase in more specialised facilities, and, not least, a far greater emphasis, and welcome emphasis, on the professional training of staff.
However, this overall improvement has been accompanied, I think, by a growing public disquiet over the functioning of the system. It is right that we should be deeply concerned about these schools. There are over 120 for boys and girls, and they accommodate over 8,000 young persons. But our disquiet, I think, also stems from deeper causes. It is partly a reflection of new problems, such as drug-taking among the young, which rear
1654
their heads in approved schools, as they do in other schools. Of course there are bright spots. A mere glance at the latest report of the Children's Department for the last three years, which came out in the summer, will show that they have had very striking success. However, there are all too many signs that the generation now coming through these schools is more unstable and difficult to control than those who went before them; and all the time we mark the inexorable rise in the failure rate. For boys, in 1947 it was under 30 per cent.; in 1962, it was 62 per cent. With girls, it was 14 per cent. (girls are, for some reason, better than boys) in 1958 and by 1962 it was 21 per cent. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us that this remorseless rise is being contained.
It is natural, therefore, that the Government—any Government—should be concerned about the administration of these schools. This was one of the reasons which led the last Conservative Government to set up the Royal Commission on the Penal System. I would remind noble Lords that the then Home Secretary, my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, stated in public at the time, in 1964, that one of the important questions for the Royal Commission was to review the approved school system and the borstal system together. These two systems had grown up independently—in many ways and in many areas they overlap—and both were, and are, under criticism. By now that Royal Commission, headed by my noble friend Lord Amory, might well have reported had not the Government, under the present Home Secretary, I think, chopped its head off.
The present Government have, of course, promised a great deal in this field. When in Opposition the Labour Party produced, with a great fanfare of trumpets, and under the ægis of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, their booklet, Crime—A Challenge to Us All. It was, if I may say so, a typical piece of "Longfordiana": in part sublime, in part less than sublime.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, since we are on that subject, can the noble Earl tell us which of the parts were less sublime?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it would take a long time to do so. I think it

1655
would take me too much time, and I have rather a long speech to make.
Thereafter, we saw the Government's rather slim White Paper of 1965, and were led to suppose that legislation would soon follow. Since then, silence has descended, save that the Home Secretary, in the best traditional style, has told us that legislation will be forthcoming when Parliamentary time permits. If the noble Lords who will be replying cannot, in advance of the Queen's Speech, let Mr. Jenkins's cats out of the bag, I hope that at least they will be able to graft some flesh and blood on to the bare bones of that White Paper.
The Government apparently propose—or at least they proposed in that White Paper—to proceed, as I understand it, along four main lines. There is to be a merger of the junior and intermediate approved schools into a comprehensive range of residential establishments run, in the main, by the local authorities. There is to be a takeover of the senior approved schools by the borstals. The Home Office is to be the Government Department ultimately responsible for these services. There is also a polite obeisance in the White Paper towards a retention of the voluntary element in the new system.
We shall naturally judge the Government's detailed proposals if and when they ever see the light of day. Personally—and I am speaking quite personally here—I was much impressed by the fact that the great weight of evidence submitted to the Royal Commission on the Penal System favoured the integration of the approved school system into the main stream of our social services. This seems to me to be the right way forward. I have a more open mind about the proposal to merge the senior approved schools with the borstals. It may be sensible, but it does mean that the last buffer between a young man or a young woman and the penal system as a whole will be removed. Again, I personally believe that the White Paper is right in placing, or rather retaining, responsibility within the Home Office in this sphere. But only seven years ago I recall that noble Lords opposite took a rather different view. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, called it—and I think I am quoting him correctly—"a fundamental
1656
error" for the Home Office to retain responsibility. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, echoing him, went further. "One might just as well make the Ministry of Defence responsible", he intoned. I wonder whether a taste of Whitehall's honey has caused both noble Lords to eat their words?
Finally, I sincerely hope that the Government are sincere in what they say about the retention of the voluntary principle. I accept the case for broadening the composition of voluntary management committees. I accept that there may well be a good case for bringing the local authorities more into the picture, but in my view we must continue to tap the good will and keenness of the volunteer. Perhaps it is in those areas where social administration is more difficult, that it is most important to try to build in the corrective of the volunteer. In this field one needs professionals and one needs professional training, but often an ounce of knowledgeable enthusiasm may be worth pounds of professionalism. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord can confirm that whatever system is finally hatched out, the new managers will retain a good measure of autonomy.
A number of other matters have caught my eye in reflecting on this debate. There is the building programme. Can the noble Lord tell us how serious is the impact on the schools of the cuts resulting from the first Wilson economic crisis of 1964? Then there is the geographical location of the schools. Is the noble Lord satisfied that there are enough of them near the homes of the boys who live in them? There is the question of psychiatric treatment. I think anybody who knows these schools knows that a seriously disturbed boy or girl can almost hamstring the work of an approved school. Too many approved schools have to cope with very disturbed boys and girls because there is no suitable inpatient treatment available elsewhere. This serious problem was highlighted in the report of the Children's Department three years ago. Surely after another three years it is a bit "wet" merely to say, "it is still being considered", which is what is stated in this year's report.
There is the provision of pre-release and post-release hostels for boys and girls in, or leaving, these approved schools. The crying need for these hostels runs

1657
through nearly all the evidence submitted to the Royal Commission, and the Home Office has surely an important and rather exciting part to play in planning their provision. But in the last report of the Children's Department all we had was tame and neutral comment about "several schools" now having pre-release facilities. I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us something more positive about this.
There are only two other general matters I should like to single out for comment. The first is the need for a new and clear-cut code of administration. The approved school rules were promulgated as long ago as 1933, and many of them are beginning to show the wear and tear of age. When will the new rules be issued? The second general point is that the quality of any approved school (and indeed this applies to more than approved schools) stems almost entirely from the quality of its staff. I know that great efforts have been made in recent years to recruit staff of the highest possible calibre and to see that they receive the best possible training. This is a plant, the nurturing of which should be the concern of every Home Secretary.
It is against this general background that I wish to express my serious concern about the Home Secretary's handling of the Court Lees affair. I do so because I believe it could vitally affect and impair the morale of those who run and staff our approved schools at a crucial moment in the evolution of the whole system. This sorry business has been fully reported in the Press and has been the subject of a careful Inquiry by a distinguished Queen's Counsel, Mr. Edward Brian Gibbens, and therefore I shall only sketch the history of these recent events.
This school was founded some 110 years ago in the Euston Road as a home for destitute boys by a group of well-intentioned businessmen. It was moved to its present rather pleasant position in Surrey between the wars. The largest school of its kind in the country, it is an intermediate school, catering for boys between the ages of 13 and 15 on admission. It has a management committee of 13 members, and the chairman of the managers is His Honour Judge Cohen, who succeeded a Colonel Hale in May, 1967, after the latter's death, and after the incidents which were the subject of
1658
Mr. Gibbens's Inquiry. The headmaster is a Mr. D. Haydon, who succeeded Mr. Fidoe on January 1 this year, and Mr. Haydon's deputy is a Mr. Draycon.
The Inquiry was ordered by the Home Secretary in May, following communications to the Press by an approved school teacher. He sent two letters, which your Lordships will find reproduced as appendices to Mr. Gibbens's Report. Later on, he sent another paper and photographs of boys who he alleged had received corporal punishment. The sender of these communications and photographs desired to remain pseudonymous—in other words, under a pseudonym. However, his identity was later revealed as Mr. I. R. W. Cook, a teacher at Court Lees school. I do not want to say a great deal about the pseudonymous Mr. Cook. I do not know him, as indeed I do not know anyone personally connected with the Court Lees affair. Other noble Lords who speak this afternoon may wish to say more on that subject.
I shall only refer your Lordships—and I shall not read them out—to the comments about Mr. Cook made by Mr. Gibbens in paragraph 29 in his Report. I understand that Mr. Haydon, who has spent some twenty years in the approved school system, has an excellent, indeed an outstanding record. He was appointed to Court Lees this year with the full and explicit approval of the Home Office. Of him Mr. Gibbens writes in paragraph 33 of his Report:
"As a witness he appeared honest and candid, making no attempt to avoid difficult matters which he was required to explain."
Of Mr. Fidoe, the former headmaster, Mr. Gibbens writes:
'I think he was an honest witness, and where he was able to recollect the incident clearly I would accept his evidence."
Mr. Gibbens held a full investigation and an Inquiry which lasted from June 26 until June 30. In the event Mr. Cook did not pursue many of the allegations in his letters. As will be seen from a comparison between paragraphs 27 and 78 of the Report, eleven main allegations were made, of which the majority were disproved. Four allegations were, however, deemed by Mr. Gibbens to be proven. Two were perhaps relatively minor, but two were far more serious. The first was that a cane of a type not authorised under the Approved School

1659
Rules had been used at Court Lees ever since 1961. That was six years before Mr. Haydon took over. This is quite clearly in absolute contradiction to the Approved School Rules, and Mr. Haydon did not contest this point.
The second allegation which Mr. Gibbens found proved was that, perhaps as a result of the use of this unauthorised cane, Mr. Haydon had in four instances caned boys with excessive severity. I do not wish myself, and I am not certain it is the time, to argue the principle, the pros and cons, of corporal punishment in approved schools. I do not wish to do so to-day. But I do not wish to minimise the seriousness of Mr. Gibbens's findings. Two most distinguished medical witnesses, Professor Simpson and Dr. Teare, made it clear that judging by the photos of the injuries inflicted as a result of the caning of two boys they would have felt bound to call for an investigation by the police or some other authority if those boys had been brought to them in their hospitals. I will only say myself that if corporal punishment is used in closed establishments against young boys it is absolutely essential that it should be used with moderation and with meticulous attention to the rules. Judging by the Report, that was not the case at Court Lees.
Now I am about to voice some criticisms of the Home Secretary's subsequent handling of this case. However, I should like to make it quite plain that up to this period in the mid-summer of this year I can see nothing in his actions to criticise. He was, I believe, entirely right to order this Inquiry. In my opinion no Home Secretary in his right mind could have afforded to ignore or make light of a Report of the nature which Mr. Jenkins received from this eminent Q.C. It is rather the subsequent actions of the Home Secretary on receiving Mr. Gibbens's Report which are, I think, open to criticism, and serious criticism at that.
First, there was his handling of the managers, including the distinguished chairman, Judge Cohen. According to Judge Cohen, a despatch rider arrived at his home on July 28 bearing a single copy of the Gibbens Report with a summons to discuss the Report and to hear the Home Secretary's conclusion on it a day or two later, on August 1. In a covering letter he was asked not to
1660
discuss the Report with his fellow-managers. On August 1 the chairman saw a high official, I think the Permanent Under-Secretary, at the Home Office, and he was informed tout court that the Home Secretary's intention was to withdraw recognition from the school and that this decision was likely to be announced on August 7. Again, the treatment which Judge Cohen received I can only characterise as cavalier. He asked for a personal interview with the Home Secretary, and this, to my mind, rather reasonable request was initially refused. It was subsequently accorded, I understand, as a result of an intervention by a Member of another place. He was also refused permission even to inform his colleagues of the Home Secretary's intentions before they were to meet on the afternoon of August 5, just two days before the final announcement of the Home Secretary's decision was expected.
Two days later the chairman was told it was up to him to suggest alternative ways of dealing with the situation. When the board met on August 5 they saw the Report for the first time—this, again, I find almost unbelievable—and were refused more than one copy, so I understand, between them. They asked for a further week to consider the matter properly, but once again a perfectly reasonable request from responsible managers was brusquely turned down. On August 6 the meeting between the Home Secretary and some of the managers, which Mr. Jenkins had originally refused, took place. The Home Secretary put five proposals to the managers, very much in the form of an ultimatum. In the upshot the managers, albeit with reluctance, accepted four of the five proposals, including the dismissal of Mr. Haydon. But they dug their toes in on the condition that Mr. Cook should continue in his present employment. I find it hard to see how any Home Secretary could possibly have expected the managers to stomach the suggestion that Mr. Cook should continue as a master at Court Lees after the comments that Mr. Gibbens, a Q.C., had seen fit to pass on him. However—and I make this crystal clear to your Lordships—save for this one condition the managers were prepared to accept all the Home Secretary's stipulations, and they left the meeting in the belief that their virtual capitulation had

1661
saved the school. They were wrong. On the very next day the Home Secretary announced his decision to close it.
What had Judge Cohen and his fellow managers done to merit such rough treatment? It is possible the Ministers who will be replying will tell us the Home Office had other reasons for convicting them in this summary way. If so, I hope they will tell us frankly what those reasons were. I would only point out that Court Lees, like any other approved school, is subject to Home Office inspection. It received the full treatment in 1963 and has been regularly inspected since. If, at these times, the Home Office inspectorate were dissatisfied with what they found and were dissatisfied with the reaction of the managers to their recommendations, they, or indeed a Home Office Minister, had only to pick up the telephone and tell the managers just that.
My second ground of criticism of the Home Secretary's subsequent actions lies in his precipitate and over-dramatised action in closing the school. I can find no possible justification for this. It meant that about 50 boys were prematurely released. It meant that some 70 more were suddenly uprooted at very short notice and dispersed to schools and unfamiliar surroundings all around the country. Was this really necessary? If the Home Secretary could not contemplate the headmaster and his deputy continuing at Court Lees, would it not have been possible for him, as a temporary measure, to call in temporary replacements? I hope in any event the Minister who will be replying will tell us when the school will be reopened.
My third and principal burden of complaint is the treatment which has been meted out to Mr. Haydon, the headmaster, and his deputy Mr. Draycon. In effect they have been dismissed from their jobs, since after six months it has been made clear by the Home Secretary that he will not approve of their re-engagement in approved schools, either as head or as deputy. Magnanimously, Mr. Jenkins concedes that either or both of them could possibly in the future occupy some minor post in the approved school system. The position of the remaining staff, who have all remained absolutely loyal to Mr. Haydon, with the exception of the egregious Mr. Cook, is also difficult. The Home Office are not their
1662
employers and they have no guarantee of future employment.
I hope I have said enough to persuade your Lordships that I recognise the seriousness of the allegations against Mr. Haydon and Mr. Draycon which have been held to be proved. I equally hope your Lordships will recognise the seriousness of the position in which these two men now find themselves. They have both given many years of service in approved schools. Mr. Haydon, a man, I am told, of quite exceptional quality, could have looked forward to some 15 or 20 years of active employment. On February 6, as a result of the Home Secretary's fiat, both their jobs will end. Both will lose not only their jobs but their homes.
But, worst of all, both these men have been condemned virtually unheard. They have certainly not received the normal tenure hearing which would have been open to any headmaster or deputy in the normal educational system. Moreover, in view of the nature of the Gibbens Inquiry, they laboured under very great disadvantages indeed at that Inquiry. It was held in private, and those witnesses who could have testified on their behalf were not therefore alerted. They had no prior knowledge of the sort of accusations which would be made. They were not permitted to attend whilst the boys were giving evidence, and apparently the statements of the boys were not shown to the masters' legal representatives, except where they were held to diverge from evidence already given. I am sure those of your Lordships who are lawyers will recognise that these are very grave disadvantages. Above all, the Inquiry was conducted under narrow terms of reference. It was held, accordingly, in isolation from the whole general background of a school which the Home Secretary himself has described as having meritorious features. It has, I understand, a notably high success rate—the sort of fact which could not be put in as evidence in favour of these masters.
Contrast this with the conduct of the Carlton Inquiry, seven years ago. That Inquiry was held in public. It is true that here again masters were excluded from it when the boys were giving evidence. However, when two of the 42 boys had given evidence the Inquiry was

1663
adjourned at the request of an able advocate, a certain Mr. Gerald Gardiner Q.C., in order that the staff and their advisers should study the shorthand record of the boys' allegations. I am a little surprised that the Lord Chancellor did not suggest this procedure at Court Lees. Finally, and above all, the Home Secretary of the day gave Mr. Durand the widest possible terms of reference. Nothing in fact is more striking than a comparison of these two Reports. It is no reflection on Mr. Gibbens—it is rather a reflection on the narrow terms of reference with which he had been armed—that from his Report, unlike Mr. Durand's, one gets no real feel of the school and of the atmosphere in it.
But there is another matter to which I feel I must draw your Lordships' attention, and that is the specific undertakings which were given at the Inquiry by Mr. Solomon, the counsel for the Home Office instructed by the Treasury Solicitor. This is what Mr. Solomon said to Mr. Gibbens in his closing address. I will read his words from the transcript. He said:
"…no disciplinary consequences would follow or could properly follow automatically upon your Report. That matter would have to be investigated subsequently by the appropriate authority and gone into, and there would be the opportunity of defence and so forth given."
He went on to say
"Therefore an adverse finding against somebody may be involved, but if somebody was found to be under criticism or blamed in the report of a tribunal of this nature, and dismissed or disciplinary action taken as a result of it, he would necessarily be the subject of a further inquiry or investigation and so forth."
My Lords, the Government may care to resort to what I can only call the technical quibble that Mr. Haydon and Mr. Draycon have technically not been dismissed. Be that as it may, they have certainly been criticised in the Report of the Tribunal. Certainly they have been blamed, and certainly consequences for them, and disastrous consequences, are likely to follow. But yet they have been denied that opportunity of defence, that further inquiry or that investigation which was specifically promised by Mr. Solomon.
I would hold this to be serious even if nothing in the Report by Mr. Gibbens was contested. But, my Lords, certain
1664
aspects of his findings are indeed contested. In paragraph 78(a) for example, Mr. Gibbens found that the headmaster had not conformed with Rule 34(iv) of the Approved School Rules; and this finding is based in the main on what is said in paragraph 37 of the Report. In that paragraph it is stated that
"it is a standard practice at this school to administer corporal punishment immediately after the offence has been committed."
Furthermore, in paragraph 37(c) it is stated that
"any preliminary inquiry by the headmaster before caning a boy for absconding is probably cursory."
I understand that both these statements are strenuously denied.
There are other areas where a rather different gloss is put upon the action of the masters in the Report than others hold to be justified; and there are also obvious areas of doubt which arise, in particular over the interpretation of the injuries in the photographs. There was, of course, a deviation of opinion among the eminent medical witnesses here. I think that photographs of this nature are probably extremely hard to assess. Four eminent medical witnesses were called and they considered photographs of three boys. They were only unanimous in thinking that the photographs of one revealed injuries of quite unusual severity. Apart from this, many people find it hard to understand how it is possible to reconcile their findings in this respect with the statements of some of the boys who were caned, about the actions which they took immediately after the caning which they received. These statements are to be found in the transcript of the Inquiry, and I greatly hope that the Government will arrange to make the full transcript of the Inquiry available to Parliament.
Finally, there is new evidence which has come to light since the Inquiry. For example—I quote only one example—Mr. Johnson, who has been the horticultural adviser at the school for some 13 years, saw one of the boys who it was claimed was caned with exceptional severity, only a day or two after the incident had taken place, and he saw no unusual marks on him; and a number of the boys themselves have come forward with statements bearing this out.

1665
The conclusion, my Lords, seems to me to be inescapable. As a result of the most restrictive terms of reference given to Mr. Gibbens by the Home Secretary, as a result of the Home Secretary's precipitate action following the Gibbens Report, and as a result of his persistent refusal as yet to entertain the idea of a further and fuller inquiry, despite the promise given by the counsel briefed by the Home Office on behalf of the Treasury Solicitor, there is grave doubt in my mind whether justice at least towards the headmaster and his deputy has been done. Certainly it has not been seen to be done, and I have a very real fear that a real injustice may be about to be perpetrated.
That is not only my personal belief; it is shared by the four associations most closely involved in these matters. I have met representatives of these associations and I have been impressed by their passionate feeling that an injustice may be about to be perpetrated. I do not think that we should minimise these feelings. This is a matter which closely affects those most closely involved, and above all, of course, the headmaster and his deputy. It is a matter which closely affects the managers of this school. But its ripples I think go beyond this. The Home Secretary's handling of this matter is important for the approved school system as a whole. It is important if we are to preserve the voluntary principle in these affairs. One will not attract good managers or good volunteers to-morrow if to-day's managers are slighted and spurned. Above all, it is important for the staff. The quality of our approved schools cannot be higher than the quality of the staff within them. Indeed, unless the existing staff within the system feel that they are receiving justice and that their colleagues are receiving justice, recruitment and quality are bound to fall off.
It is important for the Home Office itself. The Home Office is embarking on major measures of reconstruction and reform in this whole area. At no time has it been more crucial for it to maintain good communications right down the line. At no time have those communications been more in jeopardy. And they have been jeopardised by the Home Secretary's own actions. I do not believe I am exaggerating when I say that this case has caused a real and deep malaise throughout the whole system. There are a great many people in it who believe that
1666
in this case the referee has not played by the rules, and that the Home Secretary himself is offside.
Thus, the matter is important for the Home Secretary himself. My Lords, such criticisms as I have made of Mr. Jenkins's handling of this case have not come easily from me. I have a great respect for him in our public life. He is, and I hope he will remain, a personal friend. I have hesitated before voicing these criticisms. I have done so because I believe avoidable damage is being done to the system and that avoidable injustice is about to be perpetrated. I have also done so because I believe that the damage and the injustice are still avoidable and that the remedies lie close at hand to the Home Secretary.
I would suggest two measures which he can and should take. First, he should without delay lift the cloud of uncertainty which at present surrounds the whole approved school system, and announce, again without delay, how he intends to carry out the vague intentions of the 1965 White Paper. Second, he should institute a further public inquiry, with wide terms of reference as in the case of the Carlton Inquiry, before any official decision is taken regarding the future of Mr. Haydon and Mr. Draycon. I believe that if the Home Secretary can bring himself to take this second decision, which simple justice demands, he will heighten his already high reputation and strengthen the standing of his office. I trust that the noble Lord when he replies can give us some hope that this will, in fact, be his colleague's decision. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for raising this matter as soon as we have returned to our Parliamentary duties. I must begin with an apology to your Lordships, in that I shall not be able to be present during the whole course of this debate, and I hope your Lordships will be assured that this is not intended as any discourtesy.
I wanted to speak briefly in this debate because I have a particular interest in the subject, in so far as Court Lees School is within sight of my home, and we have seen many of their activities over the past eleven years during which we have lived in the area. I have visited

1667
the school on several occasions. I remember well the centenary of the school in which the headmaster welcomed back so many old boys, and we were all delighted to see them. I have known the former headmaster, Mr. Fidoe, and his wife, and a number of the managers, for a long time. I can assure your Lordships that these are all public-spirited and highly respected people. It was therefore a great surprise to me and a matter for very great regret and distress to read the Report of Mr. Gibbens on the administration of punishment in the school.
I must say that I thought it a very fair report. I thought that he bent over backwards in order to refuse any evidence which might be in doubt. I do not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that in reading that Report one gets no idea of the atmosphere which must have prevailed at certain times in the school. Some people have sought to put forward the view that the administration of punishment was such a small aspect of the general running of the school that the Home Secretary's action in closing it amounted to a "gross injustice". Some people have condemned the Home Secretary on the grounds that nothing worse took place at Court Lees than took place at public schools before the Second World War, and may indeed take place at some of them to-day. I must reject these attitudes completely. I believe that the Home Secretary was fully justified in the action he took. I think that, faced with this Report, he had no alternative.
First, the Gibbens Report tells us much more than the punishment aspect. It draws, however indirectly, a clear picture of an atmosphere which must surely, if Mr. Gibbens is right—and I believe he is—have been prejudicial to the practice of modern ideas of reform and reclamation of boys. Secondly, it is no use saying that this place was no worse than an old-fashioned public school. This institution has to deal with boys from a very different background, all of whom must be in need of some form of care and protection and, above all, of sympathy.
The picture which emerges from the Gibbens Report is, to me, quite horrifying.
1668
I do not see how anyone can reject the conclusion that in a number of cases there was excessive severity of punishment. There was deceit on the part of certain members of the staff in not recording the excessive number of punishments, with the result that it was difficult, if not impossible, for the managers or the Home Office to know what was going on. To some extent this must reduce the blame which can attach to the managers, because they had not a record of what was happening. I think that it was this refusal to record what was taking place which must have played a considerable part in leading Mr. Cook into writing anonymously to The Guardian. I hold no brief for Mr. Cook—indeed, I do not know him—and I think it would have been much better if he had made representations to the Home Office and had informed the headmaster of what he was doing. But I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who painted a rather black picture of Mr. Cook, that in the Gibbens Report, in paragraph 31, Mr. Gibbens said:
"However, in many parts Mr. Cook's evidence was corroborated by other evidence, and I find that much of it is true."
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? I was not aware I had "painted a picture" of Mr. Cook. What I did was to refer your Lordships to what was said of him by Mr. Gibbens.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl did not intend to mislead the House, but he did not read paragraph 31, in which Mr. Gibbens specifically stated that he accepted much of Mr. Cook's evidence.
I believe that, apart from the size of the cane, there was, as Mr. Gibbens pointed out, ignorance of Home Office regulations when boys were caned in their pyjamas in the middle of the night And although the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, may say that this is a matter which is being contested, I do not think one can pick and choose the evidence according to what one likes or does not like in a Report such as the Gibbens Report. Many of us who have read the Report were extremely worried about the ways in which the boys were treated, and in particular

1669
about the statement made in the Report that:
"boys brought back to the school after absconding, if they are to be caned, are caned forthwith upon their return, whatever the hour. Thus it often happens that a boy who arrives at the school late at night disconsolate, tired after a long journey and probably emotionally upset, is immediately caned. Any preliminary inquiry by the headmaster as to the reason for absconding is probably cursory."
That is what Mr. Gibbens said. Certainly it may be contested, but, so far as I know, the Report has been accepted generally as a very fair one.
Then there is the degrading spectacle of one master holding a boy's head between his knees while the headmaster beats him with excessive severity. That was the evidence given in the case of Boy No. 20. On the question of mental disability, which has not yet been mentioned this afternoon, I find the statement that the school's medical officer for the past twenty years had never been asked by the headmaster on any occasion as to whether any boy suffered a mental disability to be quite incredible. It is true that mentally ill children are not meant to be sent to approved schools, and Mr. Gibbens found no evidence of boys suffering from mental disability having been caned. But most of them are surely seriously emotionally upset and unbalanced, certainly for a time, and corporal punishment of such boys could do a great deal of harm. I ask the Government: do we not need a much clearer definition by the Home Office of what constitutes mental disability or emotional instability for the purpose of dealing with boys of this sort?
I would ask the noble Lord what are the facts about the qualifications of the staff at Court Lees. This matter was mentioned by Mr. Cook in one of the letters he wrote, and, in fairness to the headmaster, I would ask particularly what are the qualifications of the headmaster. What, in fact, was his background and experience which justified the appointment, and how was the appointment made? Was it made with the approval of the Home Office or not? I believe that many members of the staff must be exonerated from any blame in this matter, yet one cannot help feeling that if these things were going on some members of the staff might have been able to see them taking place and might
1670
have been in a position to report to the Home Office.
I should hate to feel that what has come out of the Gibbens Report is in any way representative of what prevails in other approved schools, but I think that the Court Lees affair should mark a turning point in approved school administration, not merely in the declining use of the cane (to me, this is not the most important aspect of the Gibbens Report), but in the whole approach of people who have to teach and care for boys in approved schools to the problem and reform and reclamation. These are problem children—they would not be there if they were not—and I think it is our job to see that these problems are dealt with with sympathy and understanding. As I have said, I believe that the Home Secretary was quite right in his action, and I hope that in the near future the school can be reopened and a fresh start made. If any injustice has been done to any individual, that is a separate matter which must be taken up; but to me a fresh start at Court Lees is the important point.
3.30 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for the speech which he has just made, and for the support which he has given to the action taken by the Home Secretary. For somewhat different reasons I think that the House, as well as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, has reason to be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for having initiated the debate, because the Home Secretary has made only one statement on this subject. I am very glad of this opportunity to set out the facts clearly, and thus do what I can to refute the constant barrage of misleading, biased and frequently inaccurate statements which have been made about the closure of Court Lees school since my right honourable friend's decision.
As the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said, this has been an unhappy affair. Withdrawal of the certificate of approval of an approved school is a serious step. But in my view, and as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, indicated, my right honourable friend took the correct and, indeed, the only possible course open to him. Unfortunately, in most of what has been

1671
said and written during the last two and a half months the main issue has been clouded by a number of side issues—raised understandably, perhaps, in a vain attempt to defend the indefensible. In my view, this did not emerge clearly from the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, but I put it to your Lordships that the Home Secretary's main concern is, and must be, the welfare of the boys. That is the first consideration.
I also put it clearly to your Lordships that the main issue here is one of brutality. There is no other word for it: brutality in caning boys with excessive severity; in resorting to corporal punishment without properly considering whether some other punishment was more appropriate; administering the maximum number of strokes on almost every occasion and with an outsize cane, whatever the offence and whatever the boy's record; and in caning a boy at the earliest possible moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said, so that an absconder arriving back at the school late at night, disconsolate and tired after a long journey and emotionally upset, was immediately beaten. These are the facts which we have to reckon with, and they are not softened by the assertion which has been made that the person responsible was an otherwise decent man, who resorted to excessive use of the cane because he did not know how to run the school without it.
Breaches of the Approved School Rules are more than ordinarily serious, because, unlike most schoolboys, boys in approved schools are not in day-to-day contact with their parents. They cannot tell them when they have been caned; they cannot be examined by their parents or by the family doctor. Of course this is true of many of the pupils in independent boarding schools but, as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, indicated, this is not a valid comparison. Boys in approved schools are detained in care under compulsion: their parents cannot remove them when they wish. We must therefore insist on strict compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the Approved School Rules. But more important than breaches of the rules is the attitude towards the boys. The Court Lees attitude allowed brutality of the kind I have mentioned without arousing
1672
protest from more than a tiny minority of the staff.
The words "approved school" have a very real meaning which must not be forgotten. They mean that the school has been approved by the Home Secretary for the reception of boys whom the courts have found to be in need of a fairly long period of residential care. This approval is signified by a certificate signed personally by the Home Secretary of the day when the school is first established, and is deemed to be continued by his successors until surrendered or withdrawn. Would any of your Lordships suggest that my right honourable friend could approve, or continue to approve, a school at which an independent Inquiry, conducted with great care and impartiality, had revealed continued and consistent attitudes and practices of the sort I have described?
Indeed, the situation revealed by Mr. Gibbens' Report was so disturbing and so intolerable that the Home Secretary had an inescapable duty to act swiftly to protect the boys. Corporal punishment on the same scale—and the noble Earl did not mention this—had continued even after the appointment of Mr. Gibbens to conduct an inquiry. Unless there was an immediate end to the unwarrantably harsh punishment, and a fundamental change in the attitudes of those responsible for running it, the school could not be allowed to continue as an approved school and boys could not be permitted to remain there a day longer than was necessary.
Your Lordships will be aware of the very long discussion which took place between my right honourable friend and the school managers nine days after the chairman had received a copy of the report. The noble Earl made something of the fact that it went to His Honour Judge Cohen by special messenger, by motor-cyclist, on the 28th. That was because we had received a copy only on the 27th. We could not send it any more quickly or any sooner. Accounts of the discussion which took place have concentrated on specific points which he put to them, and it has been alleged that, but for failure to agree on one point, my right honourable friend would not have decided to withdraw the certificate of approval. This is not true.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord on one point? I am grateful to him for giving way. I was not aware that I had made any great point about the motor-cycle. The point that I was making was that Judge Cohen was not permitted to give a copy of the Report to his co-managers. I thought that was perfectly obvious from what I was saying.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I only repeated what the noble Earl said. I am afraid there is a misunderstanding here. The account which the noble Earl gave of this alleged restriction does not accord with our view in the Home Office, or with the view of officials who met Judge Cohen at the time. The reason for only one copy is the obvious one. In a matter of this kind the fewer copies there are about the better. It certainly was not the intention of the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office that Judge Cohen should not communicate the contents of this Report to his colleagues: indeed, he did so on Saturday, the 5th when he met them; and our understanding of the matter is that he himself could not arrange to meet them before.
But these are rather small points. The point I was making is that it is not true, as has been alleged, that it was failure to agree on only one point which determined the Home Secretary's decision. The break with the managers did not occur on a single point because, quite apart from their reaction to the detailed proposals, the unhappy fact which impelled the Home Secretary to withdraw the certificate was their failure even to understand the implications of Mr. Gibbens's conclusions. Thus, as a result of his discussions with the managers, my right honourable friend had no confidence in either their ability or their willingness to give the school the fresh start that it clearly needed.
The decision, affecting as it did the lives of many people—staff and boys—was a difficult one to take, but it was warmly received by all those people in the schools, in the social services, in many other professions and among the general public, who understood the issues and who really had the interests of the boys at heart. It is interesting and encouraging that, of nearly 200 letters received at the Home Office from ordinary members of the public, almost two-
1674
thirds expressed support for the Home Secretary's decision—and this despite the fact that the opposition to it was so vocal and publicised.
My Lords, once the decision had been taken it was imperative to remove the boys as quickly as possible. The publication of the Report and the hostility of the managers and staff to the decision gave rise to a serious danger of a breakdown in discipline, and the parents were entitled to expect that their sons would not long be left in a school from which the Home Secretary had withdrawn his approval. There was a danger—which the Home Secretary fully appreciated—that rapid dispersal might have an adverse effect on the boys, but this was minimised by taking great care to consider, in consultation with the school staff, the individual needs of each boy. About fifty of the boys were sent to their homes a little sooner than they would otherwise have been, and the rest transferred to other schools. There is no indication that this dispersal has given rise to any serious problems.
On the future of the school, about which the noble Lord asked me, the Home Secretary has always hoped, and still hopes, that the premises of this school and most of the staff would continue in the approved school system—and this for two very good reasons. First, over the years my Department has spent a substantial sum of public money—some £200,000—in establishing the school and in providing first-class physical facilities for the treatment of approved school boys. We need this accommodation for 160 boys, although I am glad to assure the noble Earl that there has been little or no impact on the building programme by the restrictions to which he referred. We have some 9,700 places in approved schools now available, and in December, 1966, the usage was slightly under 8,000. So there is not that pressure. But we need this accommodation for the reasons of our general policy to which I referred, because, although we intend before long to change the system, we shall still need good residential accommodation of the kind which Court Lees provides.
Secondly, although some of the staff can fairly be criticised for not having reported injuries which they must have seen, the majority are not responsible for

1675
the situation in which they find themselves. The Home Secretary has therefore hoped from the outset that the school can be reconstituted under local authority management, and that most of the staff will be re-engaged in their present posts. To allow time for this to be done, he arranged for the staff to be given six months' notice and retained at the school for the whole of that period, although there are no boys there. He had hoped that long before the six months expired most of them would have been promised continued employment at the reconstituted school, and would know that they would not have to leave their homes.
Unfortunately, this has not yet happened, and your Lordships will want to know why. It has only recently become possible to take firm steps to reconstitute the school. Within days of reaching his decision, the Home Secretary asked the Surrey County Council if they would be prepared to open a new school in the premises, and to consider re-engaging the majority of the staff. The Council quickly agreed to do so, and we are very grateful to them for it. But the property is owned by the trustees, and the trustees are two of the managers. Without their agreement the property cannot be transferred and the new school cannot be established. The two trustees are not yet prepared to agree, even in principle, because the managers still hope that the decision will be reversed. They have said that they will agree if they are convinced that the school cannot continue in its present form. I hope I can convince them that it cannot, because their attitude is not consistent with their expressed concern for the staff, who are understandably extremely anxious about their jobs and their homes.
In this position, the Home Secretary suggested to the managers that, without prejudice to the outcome of any further representations that might be made, they should allow those members of staff who would wish to remain at the school, if it is reconstituted under the Surrey County Council, to be interviewed to see whether the Council would be prepared to reappoint them. The managers, I am glad to say, have now agreed to this, and the Council are making arrangements for the interviews. Those who are offered posts will therefore know definitely that their
1676
jobs and homes are secure. The Home Office does not run or own the approved schools, and apart from the headmaster, whose appointment is subject to his approval, the Home Secretary has no direct responsibility for the appointment of staff. But if—and I hope I can say, surely unthinkably—our hopes of opening a new school are frustrated, we shall do what we can to help the staff find alternative posts.
As I have said, the trustees and managers are still hoping that there will be some sort of a reprieve. I wish to make it perfectly clear that my right honourable friend has not the slighest intention of reversing his decision. Mr. Gibbens's Report, which the Home Secretary has accepted, was submitted after the most thorough Inquiry at which those against whom misconduct was alleged were legally represented—all of them: the headmaster, his deputy and Mr. Cook. As to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, about the five points, it was a specific inquiry and eleven specific points were put to Mr. Gibbens. The school managers, the headmaster, his deputy and the previous headmaster, as well as Mr. Cook, were all legally represented, and of course it was open to counsel to put forward the names of any persons who might be able to throw light on the allegations, when, at the discretion of Mr. Gibbens, they would have been called to give evidence. There is no suggestion whatever that anyone who could have helped or who could have given evidence was barred from doing so, and any suggestion that the headmaster and others did not have full help, full legal representation and a full opportunity to say whatever they wished to Mr. Gibbens is not correct.
The Inquiry and the Report were scrupulously fair. The Times Educational Supplement said that Mr. Gibbens was "almost excessively fair". Indeed, if your Lordships read the Report you will find that he accepted as proved only allegations for which there was corroboration—most difficult under the circumstances, my Lords. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, asked me about the publication of a full transcript. Unfortunately, this cannot be made public because among other things it contains the names and addresses of the boys, and it is our duty to protect them from publicity of

1677
that kind. But the Home Secretary has examined most carefully the representations which have been made to him, including certain additional statements which were sent to him on August 23. He has met and held discussions with representatives of the National Union of Teachers, the National Association of Schoolmasters, the Association of Headmasters, Headmistresses and Matrons of Approved Schools, the National Association of Approved School Staffs, the Association of Managers of Approved Schools and the honourable Member of another place in whose constituency the school lies. They raised nothing new—certainly nothing which would justify him in instituting any further inquiry; and he does not propose to do so.
It has been suggested in some quarters that although justice may have been done to the headmaster it has not been manifestly seen to be done, and that there should be some further inquiry or other action to achieve this. My Lords, I cannot see what else is required. There was an independent Inquiry by an eminent Queen's Counsel at which there was full representation. It was a much more thorough Inquiry than is normal in local education authority or other approved schools. The findings have been published, and the main facts established by Mr. Gibbens have not been challenged.
My right honourable friend granted facilities to the professional associations representing the headmaster, both before and after the Inquiry, to submit the crucial photographic evidence to independent examination. It was not disputed at the Inquiry, and although doubts were raised subsequently the association have since told the Home Secretary that they no longer challenge its authenticity. And, my Lords, anybody who has seen the photographs would not have much doubt about this matter at all, and they are not now challenged.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? He says that if anyone had seen those photographs he would have no doubt. Would he not agree that the four eminent medical witnesses who saw them disagreed as to whether they showed punishment of quite exceptional severity, save in the case of one boy?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, in my recollection it was two very eminent
1678
people with great experience in these matters who thought that had it been a case which had come before the courts, it would have been a matter for prosecution by the police or submission to the Director of Public Prosecutions—
EARL JELLICOE: In one case.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble, Lord, Lord Stonham, replies, may I ask one thing? Does not the noble Lord think that it would be advisable to send these photographs in confidence to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, these photographs have been seen by the legal representatives of the association representing the staffs concerned. They submitted them to their own independent technical examination and they have now said they are satisfied that these photographs are authentic. I think we are entitled to accept that, as others have now accepted it. The Home Secretary feels that any further inquiry or action could proceed only on the basis of the facts that have been established, and its only purpose would be to decide whether there were any factors in mitigation of the headmaster's actions. But, my Lords, this question will not arise unless disciplinary action is taken against the headmaster. In the event nobody was dismissed. The Home Secretary decided, largely for other reasons, to withdraw his approval of the school. As a result, the school has been closed and all the staff have, regrettably, lost their employment there; but that is a redundancy situation, not a disciplinary one leading to dismissal.
The noble Earl referred to the assurance given by the Home Office counsel, Mr. Solomon. My Lords, questions affecting the suitability of teachers for employment are not the responsibility of the Home Secretary, but of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Secretary of State for Education and Science has considered the Report and will take any action he considers necessary. Your Lordships will appreciate that the course of such consideration must remain confidential between the Secretary of State and the person concerned and that in all such cases, before reaching any decision, the Minister takes steps to inform him of the matters under consideration and

1679
gives him an opportunity to reply to them. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is not for me to comment further on this point at this stage.
My Lords, that is all that I have to say on the subject of Court Lees School. And I very much hope that everyone will agree that this unhappy chapter in the history of the approved schools had best be regarded as closed. The Home Secretary, as he must, has given his personal judgment on a matter which was his personal responsibility. I have no doubt that it was a correct judgment. And I have equally no doubt that there is nothing to be gained, and much to be lost, by continuing to focus public attention on a sorry record of ignorance, arrogance, disregard of statutory rules, and undesirable attitudes and practices.
I should, however, be less than just if I were to appear to suggest that the whole blame for what happened at Court Lees rests with the management and staff, or that the staff are all equally under a cloud. When a team of Home Office inspectors spent several days in the school early in August, to arrange the transfer or release of the boys, they found—as they expected to find—that the majority of the staff fully measured up to the high standards of professional skill and concern for young people which prevail in all approved schools. We look forward to retaining them within the service, either at a reconstituted Court Lees or in some other capacity. They must not suffer through their involvement in a situation which was not of their making: nor must other approved schools—and here I entirely agree with the noble Earl—suffer in public estimation through any unjustified implication of guilt by association.
But, my Lords, the team of inspectors equally found that the staff at Court Lees share the uncertainty about objectives which, in varying degrees, exists throughout the approved school service. And to the extent that this uncertainty contributed to the situation at Court Lees, we accept some of the blame. We cannot reasonably ask any body of men and women, however skilled and devoted, to behave as we expect, if we do not make our expectations clear. And if our expectations make demands which they cannot meet from their own resources, it is our responsibility, and not theirs, to make
1680
sure that the necessary additional support is made available.
My Lords, we accept the fact that the approved school system is out of date. It needs new objectives, a new setting, and much increased support from related central and local government services. In part, the necessary changes will require legislation, and Parliamentary time is a scarce commodity. It is, however, the Government's intention to implement, as soon as possible, the reforms of the approved school system foreshadowed in the White Paper The Child, the Family and the Young Offender. These were to abolish the approved school order, substituting committal to the care of a local authority, and to end the professional isolation of the approved schools by bringing them within a new and comprehensive system of residential child care establishments. This section of the White Paper met with almost unanimous approval and, while the Home Secretary is not yet ready to announce his final decisions on other proposals in that White Paper, it is the Government's firm intention to reform the approved school system along the line already indicated. And in reply to the question by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, we are emphatically of the opinion that the future in this field lies with the Home Office.
It would not be helpful to describe precisely what we have in mind until reform of the approved school system can be set in the broader context of reforms in legal procedures, and in the whole system of treatments available for young people in public care; but there are two general points which I should like to make now, since they are of direct relevance to this debate. The first is that there is no truth whatsoever in the suggestion which I have seen canvassed in the Press, and on which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, asked me a question, that the Government intend to abolish voluntary participation in the provision and management of residential child care establishments. On the contrary, we intend to preserve and develop the present partnership between voluntary and public effort.
There will, however, be changes in the present arrangements. In particular, overall planning of the new comprehensive system of residential child care will be

1681
entrusted to the local authorities. They will, for the first time, be able to formulate and carry out a coherent plan covering all the many needs and circumstances which bring children and young people into public care. But a distinction perhaps should be drawn between those voluntary approved schools which have the support of a large organisation, such as a religious community or a national charitable foundation, and those which, like Court Lees, are managed by the successors of the original founders, without such support. The former will continue to exercise a large measure of autonomy, once their place in the new system has been agreed with the local authority and approved by the Home Secretary. There will also be provision for minority local authority representation on their managing bodies.
But the Court Lees type of management is an anachronism; indeed, it is surprising that a system has so long survived under which children may be compulsorily removed from their parents and entrusted to the care of committees of private individuals. The fact that it has survived is a great tribute to the devoted work of so many of these committees. But the system has become unfair to the managers and staff of the schools concerned, who are expected to discharge what are now extremely heavy responsibilities from a position of professional and frequently of geographical isolation. These schools will therefore be asked to accept local authority control and support, secured through the appointment of a majority of local authority managers. The resulting partnership between voluntary and public effort will then be very much on the lines of the dual system of county and voluntary primary and secondary schools introduced by the Education Act of 1944. This system has shown itself capable of bringing together many of the most helpful characteristics of the two types of management, and the Home Secretary is confident that this will be equally true of the new system of residential child care.
The second point is that the new arrangements will make it possible to develop a much wider range of residential child care establishments, offering specialist forms of treatment adjusted to the differing needs of individual young
1682
people. One of the major defects of the approved school system in its present form is that it contains too many large establishments catering for too wide a range of need. It is extremely difficult to organise a single establishment to cater satisfactorily for needs as diverse as those of the boys and girls now sent to approved schools. At one end of the spectrum, there are needs which can be met by providing a therapeutic environment within which groups of young people given skilled guidance can help one another to achieve personal maturity. At the other end of the spectrum, there are boys and girls whose personalities are so badly damaged or disturbed that they need intensive adult support and treatment involving a higher staffing ratio, with access to highly specialised services, if they are to have any hope of living their lives as full and independent members of the wider community.
The need for a greater diversity of treatment is of particular importance in securing the early phasing out of corporal punishment. Punitive methods of control have no place in establishments devoted to the care and treatment of children who, most often through no fault of their own, have difficulty in controlling their emotions and in behaving in ways which are socially acceptable. These children need help, not punishment.
The phasing out of corporal punishment is not therefore a matter of devising new, and supposedly more humane methods of punishing those who misbehave. I read somewhere that this was supposed to be our intention. "The bastards will think up something", were the words actually used. We are ordinary men. We reject Mr. Squeers's long cane as the cure for maladjusted or emotionally disurbed children. We are attempting the very difficult task of abolishing the last vestiges of a punitive attitude towards those of our children who most need the help and support of the community. At best, a punitive approach can only suppress the symptoms of a damaged personality, without doing anything to make good the damage: at worst, the damage is increased, and the child leaves public care more likely to be a lifelong burden to himself and to the community than when he entered it.

1683
As I see it, the concepts for the approved school service, both in its present form and in its future role as part of a comprehensive system of residential child care, are those of control and help. We must help those of our young people who are suffering from the effects of brain damage, neglect, ill-treatment and bad family or social conditions: above all, we must help them to rebuild their capacity for personal growth. This is the greatest gift which any parent can give his children: and what good parents want for their own children, society must try to secure for all its young people.
We also recognise that the help that these children need includes control. This is not separable from treatment. Many of the young people concerned are suffering, amongst other things, from the inability of their parents to define and justify limits of socially acceptable behaviour. Ordinarily, in a good family, an awareness of these limits and an understanding of their necessity are built up gradually. A young child's security in the love of his parents helps him to conform, even while he is yet too young to understand. Given a reasonable measure of support from social influences, even the disturbance of adolescence proves to be no more than an incident in continuous personal growth where the child's relationship with capable parents is one of love.
It is this need which we have to meet with the boys and girls whom the approved schools exist to help. Personal relationships are the foundation of a truly therapeutic community. Given this base, the skills of teachers, housemasters and housemistresses, doctors, psychiatrists and instructors can reach the child, remove impediments to personal growth, and promote it in those many directions which are within the potential of even the most damaged of our young people. If, on the other hand, there is no true sense of community—if young people see their relationships with one another, and with adults, as depending wholly or largely on impersonal factors, such as rank or status within a framework of rigid rules—it is perfectly possible to have a school which is superficially brisk, purposeful and seemingly well run, but which only succeeds in keeping young people temporarily out of trouble. While they
1684
are in such a school they may be reasonably well behaved, even happy. But they are not being helped to grow as persons, and when eventually they return to the difficulties of the environment from which they came, they will be no better placed to cope with the problems it presents than when they left it.
My right honourable friend and I consider that the time has come to end the uncertainty about objectives which is preventing the approved schools from realising their full potential. We believe that many aspects of the present system, and some public attitudes towards the approved schools, still belong far too much to their past history as junior penal establishments.
How can we develop therapeutic communities and dispense with corporal punishment when we have to contain boys and girls so severely disturbed that they disrupt the life of schools which are geared to meeting the needs of a majority of less badly damaged personalities? While the schools are expected to perform this impossible task, it is only to be expected that otherwise kindly people will, in desperation, reach for the cane. We need new establishments to provide intensive care and treatment for those whom we can only with difficulty contain, thus setting us free to develop a therapeutic approach towards those who can be helped by group methods without the need for punitive controls. We have to end the geographical and professional isolation of many approved schools. The managers and staff need much more support from related local and central services. And the boys and girls need the certain knowledge that the wider community cares about them, and has not sent them away to be out of sight, out of mind, and out of heart.
I want to make it clear to the approved schools to-day that we understand their uncertainties and the difficulties which flow from an ambivalent public attitude towards their work. I would also make it clear that we recognise that the aims of helping young people in trouble and of protecting the public from juvenile delinquency are not separate, or even separable: they are the two sides of a single penny. I want to tell the approved schools that we wish them to shed the last vestiges of their former penal role and, from now on, concentrate all their

1685
efforts on controlling in order to help, and on helping in order to remove the need for anything other than inner forms of control. I want to tell them also that we recognise their need for support in pursuing a new objective of great difficulty—securing the marriage of control and help within the essential setting of a therapeutic community, together with the quickest possible phasing out of all impersonal forms of punitive control.
Without waiting for legislation my right honourable friend intends to increase, in a variety of ways, the support which the Home Office Children's Department and Inspectorate will make available to the approved schools and to the other services concerned with children whose upbringing is a matter for public concern. His principal aims are to improve communications, to which the noble Earl referred, throughout these services, and to place the resources of the Home Office at the disposal of a co-operative effort to respond more rapidly than in the past to changing needs and circumstances.
The need for good communications has never been greater. Rapid social and economic change, growing knowledge of child development, and the rise and fall of fashions in interpretative theory, mean that we can no longer achieve co-ordination of effort by relying on a slow-moving consensus, broadly shared by all the partners (lay and professional alike) in the services with which they are concerned. We need to adopt a positive stance, deliberately fostering the communication of knowledge and know-how; stimulating the co-operative application of critical judgment to those many ideas and developments which are only partially, if at all, susceptible to empirical methods of evaluation; and constantly inviting all concerned to re-examine traditional procedures and received judgments.
My right honourable friend does not therefore propose to respond to the Court Lees affair by appointing more inspectors. This would not help. There is no need for more outside observers of individual establishments, concerned more with the regularity of their practices than with the validity of their concepts. No one but a fool engages in malpractices when an inspector is looking. The need is rather for a corps of professional consultants who will be welcomed within the children's services as friends and advisers, drawing
1686
attention to attitudes and relationships out of which crisis situations may develop, and offering help in modifying them before damage is done.
The Home Secretary has therefore decided to establish a development group within the Children's Department and Inspectorate. This will be launched next month, initially by freeing a number of inspectors and administrative officers from concern with day-by-day administration, so that they can work together as a team, tackling in much greater depth than is ordinarily possible some of our most pressing problems. But as the work grows, it is my right honourable friend's intention to offer posts within the development group to people in the field who might like to contribute to the development of the children's services by spending two or three years on secondment to the group. The group will work in close co-operation with the universities, the professional associations, and organisations such as the National Bureau for Co-operation in Child Care, seeking to supplement and support the research and development work which these bodies already undertake.
My right honourable friend has also proposed to the local authority associations that the present Advisory Council on Child Care and the Central Training Council should be reconstituted and amalgamated, to become the central forum for the co-operative discussion and steering of research, development and training in child care. The reconstituted Council will be supported in its work by the new development group and by the Home Office Research Unit, both of which will undertake projects within programmes drawn up by the Council and approved by the Home Secretary and the local authority associations.
In this way we shall place the resources of the Home Office at the disposal of a body genuinely representative of all who have powers of decision in relation to child care. The professional associations and university and other research interests will be represented on the new Council as well as the local authorities and Government Departments; all will share in formulating and overseeing the carrying out of its programmes of research,

1687
development and initial and in-service staff training. We do not want a development group consisting of backroom boys, thinking great thoughts incapable of being communicated to the field workers. We need a co-operative setting, such that the Council, the development group and the research unit together assist the services to tackle problems which the field workers recognise to be real and pressing; and to ensure widespread communication of the results.
The development group will not, therefore, ordinarily undertake work entirely from its own resources. Usually, it will propose to the Council a plan of campaign involving active co-operation between the group and, for instance, a local authority which has ideas which it would like to put to the test of practical application. Indeed, one such project involving three local authorities is already being planned. The fruits of this work will be some new establishments, which people will be able to visit, together with published accounts of the work and of the lessons learned. These will certainly include recognition of unsolved problems which will need to be tackled again. For what we are now initiating is in no sense a search for definitive answers. The intention is rather to place the Home Office at the disposal of a co-operative and continuously advancing process of learning—which will reach out, eventually, to embrace, regularly and comprehensively, all who have a part to play in providing services for children.
We are in fact setting in train the development of a new role for the Children's Department and Inspectorate, for which the keynote is co-operation and communication. And this, my Lords, is especially appropriate, since we are above all concerned to foster the personal growth of young people who, because their personalities have suffered damage or deprivation, have a diminished capacity to communicate and co-operate with other people. We cannot expect to meet their needs unless we first put ourselves in a position to communicate and cooperate one with another. Then, having done so, we must pool our resources to acquire the insights and to develop the skills which will make us better able to
1688
communicate and co-operate with those children whose early unbringing has damaged their capacity to live in community. For living in community, harmoniously blending one's own independence with the independence of others, is above all a function of our capacity to communicate and co-operate one with another.
4.17 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has drawn attention to the Court Lees affair, because it gives us an opportunity to ask questions, which in the interests of justice need to be asked, and the Government an opportunity to answer. May I make my position clear? Court Lees is in my diocese, and in the recent troubles several members of the staff have told me that they want the Home Secretary to permit a full inquiry, in the hope that all relevant factors may be brought into the open. Of this request I can take account. I am not at this juncture concerned with the merits or demerits of approved schools or of the merits or demerits of corporal punishment; but I am concerned with justice to individuals. If anybody in my diocese, irrespective of Party or denomination, feels that he has not received a square deal then it is my duty to do what I can.
It may be that the Home Secretary had no alternative to do as he did. Indeed, if the situation was as the noble Lords, Lord Byers and Lord Stonham, clearly believe to have been the case, then there is no more to be said. But after a careful study of the facts I should like the Government to reassure me on certain points.
First, we are told that the punishment given to some boys was excessive; and the justification for this allegation is to be found in the photographs supplied by Mr. Cook. On the face of it the evidence may be thought to be conclusive. But the fact is—and I do not think the Home Secretary can ignore this point—that no colour transparency was ever positively identified. It would have been easy for the photographer, presumably Mr. Cook, to have done so. Why did he not? If Mr. Cook wished to prove the severity of the punishment why did he tell the boys not to show their marks to anyone? Surely it was his duty to report the matter at once, either to the managers or to the

1689
Home Office, not to command silence. He did neither.
Mr. Cook asserts that the bruising was still visible six weeks after caning. Why did he not obtain the corroboration of the school doctor? In fact, the boys concerned were examined by the doctor, and by Dr. Fleming on the 5th and 7th May, one month after the caning, and no marks were found on any boy. In respect of the alleged canings, I would draw your Lordships' attention to a letter in the British Medical Journal on October 14 from Mr. Writhall Rowe. This is what he says:
"In a B.B.C. Television programme on 1st August, a photograph which I believe was one of those used in evidence was shown briefly. It was in monochrome, and its appearance immediately aroused my suspicions for two reasons. The first was that the marks were equally apparent on both right and left buttocks, and the second was that they were equally distributed across the buttocks from the top of the natal cleft to the upper part of the thighs. Unless the boy was caned by an ambidextrous individual, operating first from his right side and then from his left, who had taken special care to distribute the strokes at regular intervals from the sacral region to the upper part of the thighs, I would beg leave to doubt the authenticity of the picture."
My Lords, corporal punishment is an emotive topic, and I am among those who would like it to disappear. But emotive feeling is no substitute for honest fact-finding, especially when a man's reputation is at stake. Rightly or wrongly, the law permits corporal punishment in certain circumstances. The only question that needs to be asked in this case is: Was the punishment excessive? Was it against the law? The Gibbens Report, accepting the authenticity of the photographs, says "Yes". I am not yet convinced of the authenticity.
The second point which worries me is the reliability of Mr. Cook as a witness. The Gibbens Report tells us that Mr. Cook:
"is a complex character: very emotional and intense, apt to exaggerate greatly, and sometimes irresponsible in his behaviour."
My Lords, that analysis in itself should have been sufficient to put the Home Secretary on his guard. But that is not all. The Report goes on to tell us that Mr. Cook's behaviour may have been determined by the fact that he, Mr. Cook, had applied for the headmastership but
1690
had been beaten in the race by Mr. Haydon. In fact, Mr. Gibbens crisply sums up the position in a single sentence:
"I think Mr. Cook's evidence is chiefly suspect on the grounds of exaggeration and that it is seasoned with a certain amount of malice to those men who are, or who have been, his superiors."
Could anything be more damning?
It may be said that Mr. Cook, in spite of his defects, was basically an honest crusader; that he hated corporal punishment; that he felt it useless to appeal either to the managers or to the Home Office; that he had no alternative but to write anonymously to the Press to further his crusade. There he is, Sir Galahad! But, my Lords, the question I ask myself—it worries me a lot, and I hope that it will worry the Front Bench—is: was Mr. Cook the honest, white-sheeted crusader he would like us to believe? Having carefully studied the evidence, I have come to the opposite conclusion. And here is my reason. In an approved school a master who is unable to deal with his own disciplinary matters can, in the last resort, send a boy to the headmaster with a yellow ticket. The yellow ticket is likely to have serious repercussions. It probably means that the boy will be caned. The fact is that Mr. Cook distributed more yellow tickets than any other member of the staff. Sir Galahad! Between 1963 and the time of the Inquiry he issued certainly not fewer than 110, because I have seen them; in fact, they are in my possession, and I have read them all with interest.
I shall not trespass upon your Lordships' patience, but I think it may help us to get the situation into perspective and to know something of the calibre of the key witness if I give details of a few. There was one on May 26, 1964:
"The boy B— stole eggs and put them down the backs of two boys' shirts."
On November 3, 1963:
"The boy W— threw a cake of soap down the stairway and the soap hit me where I was standing at the foot of the stairs."
On November 4, 1963, the boy L— was told by Mr. Cook to clean the gutters. This is what Mr. Cook says:
"He started sweeping the drain gutter, trying to sweep in my direction. He succeeded in sweeping a wet brush loaded with filth across my clean shoes. I regard this boy as a constant threat to the maintenance of good order and discipline."

1691
Then, on October 10, 1965:
"The boy H— was on the playground. I heard him clear his throat loudly preparatory to spitting. He saw me watching and desisted. I followed him into the school. When he thought he was concealed from view by other boys he spat on the ground and scuffed his foot over the deposit. He left a disgusting mess on the ground."
Then, on February 1, 1966, another boy, W— received a yellow ticket from Mr. Cook. Why? What was this extreme offence of which he was guilty, an offence which he could not deal with himself, and which required a yellow ticket, which was another way of saying: "This boy must be beaten"? Let Mr. Cook give the answer in his own words; let him describe this terrible crime which deserved perhaps corporal punishment. Here it is:
"I found that W— was wearing his socks in bed this morning at 6.45 a.m."
My Lords, those are five cases from 110. Here is the apostle in the crusade against corporal punishment. Yet this is the sort of reasons for which he issues yellow tickets, the extreme punishment, knowing the likely consequence to be a beating. If I were to recount these incidents as the eccentricities of a schoolmaster at Narkover or in the Belles of St. Trinians, we could afford to laugh; but this is the man whose evidence has contributed towards closing a school and throwing a staff out of its job.
That leads me to my third point. In August I visited Court Lees to meet those members of the staff who wanted to discuss their problems with me. Mr. Cook was not present. He subsequently complained that I had not met him. So I wrote at once to say that I should be pleased to discuss the situation when I returned from my holiday. He did not respond to the invitation. So I must content myself with the lengthy typewritten letter, eight pages, that he sent me. In it he makes a disturbing remark, and to this remark I would call the attention of Her Majesty's Government. He tells me that he was assured by the Home Office that if he gave evidence to Mr. Gibbens he would not be victimised. I cannot be too careful at this point, so let me quote his words:
"At that time there was no longer point in remaining silent, but I asked the Mail's advice. They contacted the Home Office and
1692
received an assurance that if I came forward I should not be victimised."
I do not know the definition of the word "victimised", but it is possible that Mr. Cook jumped to the conclusion that he could say what he liked to Mr. Gibbens, true or false, and nothing would happen to him.
My Lords, from what I have already told you, it is apparent that Mr. Cook finds it difficult to distinguish between truth and falsehood, and I prefer to believe that the Home Office gave no such assurance. However, in the interests of justice, it is essential that the spokesman of Her Majesty's Government, when replying, makes a categorical denial. If the denial is not forthcoming, I think your Lordships have no alternative but to believe that a key witness was in a position to make any allegation that he cared to make without fear of the ordinary consequences. But I must be fair to Mr. Cook. He obviously has a sense of guilt, because in the same letter he tells me that the headmaster, Mr. Haydon, is basically a kindly man and—here I quote his words:
"I think there is an injustice in this affair; that is, that Haydon should be dismissed for what is a fairly common state of affairs.
My Lords, have you ever been to such a Mad Hatter's tea-party? Cook accuses the headmaster of terrible cruelties; he produces photographs—fake or not—to support his allegations. And then Cook concludes by saying that the headmaster is a good fellow, after all, and is being treated unjustly by Mr. Jenkins.
My fourth point puts the ball into Mr. Jenkins's court. May I say that I have great respect for Mr. Jenkins? I admire him as our Home Secretary; I value him as a personal friend. Nevertheless, I think I know him well enough to believe that he would want me to speak the truth, as I see it. Here is the point to which I would draw his attention. We have been told by the spokesman for the Government that those four questions which were put to the managers were not the determining ones for the withdrawal of the licence. If that is so, I wish that would be made clear to the managers, and that the reasons would be given fully. Meanwhile, they are certainly under the impression that it is because they said "No" to one of those conditions. Your Lordships will remember that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, reminded us that they

1693
reluctantly agreed to the dismissal of the headmaster, and the deputy; they were prepared to take representatives from the local authority, and to have a temporary acting headmaster. The one thing they said they would not do was to retain the services of Mr. Cook. If what I am told is correct, then a reason for the Home Secretary's withdrawing the licence was because the managers disagreed with him on that point, that they could not, with a clear conscience, re-employ Mr. Cook.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the right reverend Prelate allow me to intervene? I made it perfectly clear that the decision was not on one point, but that the Home Secretary, after very long discussions with the managers, took the view that they were unable to appreciate the implications of the Gibbens Report, and that they were unable, and unwilling, to carry on a reconstituted school.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I hope that that reason will be given to the managers. Meanwhile, my problem is not solved; because, even if this was not the reason for the closure of the school, I am very surprised that a Home Secretary should require, should even ask, that Mr. Cook's services should be retained, because, from what I have told your Lordships, I do not think that any man in his right mind would let Mr. Cook loose in a community of boys. Why did the Home Secretary even ask the question? Was it perhaps because Cook had been given, in advance, that assurance that he would not be victimised?
I come now to my last point, which again is one that Lord Jellicoe raised, though I do not think it has yet been satisfactorily answered. I refer to the remarks of the Treasury Solicitor at the Inquiry:
"No-one is in the dock at this inquiry";
and
"No disciplinary consequence would follow or could properly follow automatically upon your Report. The matter would have to be investigated subsequently and gone into, and there would be the opportunity of defence and so forth given".
But sentence was passed with the publication of the Report, and justice was neither done nor seen to be done.
My Lords, I have stated my reasons for supporting the noble Earl, Lord
1694
Jellicoe. None of us would wish to condone or excuse what is wrong. If the Home Secretary can satisfy me on the points I have raised then, so far as I am concerned, there is nothing more to be said. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that the Home Secretary has not as yet given us sufficient grounds for complete satisfaction, and I now ask him, in the interests of freedom and of fair play to all the persons concerned, to initiate a full and impartial Inquiry.
4.35 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, like the rest of your Lordships, I am grateful to the noble Earl for having initiated this debate. It is an interesting and tragic story. I take part in it with a heavy heart, but I deem it my duty to your Lordships' House to say what I propose to say. I agreed very strongly with the noble Earl when he said in his opening speech that avoidable damage is being done to the approved school system. However, my Lords, I have a tale to tell.
I am frankly amazed, as the right reverend Prelate has obviously been, at the action of the Home Secretary, which has been described by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. What emotions influenced him in reaching his decision are rather obscure to me, and one cannot help wondering whether it may have been the arrogance, I regret to say, from which some of the more starry-eyed Socialists seem to suffer. I am constantly amazed at the apparent assumption by some that they are the sole repositories, not only of feeling for other people, but of knowledge and skills to serve the community.
There is an approved school in Scotland, close to a prosperous little town of, say, 1,500 to 2,000 inhabitants. I shall mention no names, because what I have to say is of general application to this debate, and I want to keep within the four corners of the Motion. It is my present intention to put down specific Questions, one for Written Answer, and to follow this up as time goes on. The school of which I speak—the only one of its kind in Scotland, one which was accepted as an experiment—was established in 1963. Many people in the locality were surprised that it had been located in a property so very close to the town. But the public was assured that the boys to be sent there were those who appeared likely to make good as decent

1695
citizens in the minimum of time. It has been suggested, actually by one of the governors to me, that the townspeople did not try to co-operate. This was not at all my impression. They were naturally hesitant, as any country community would be, at the arrival of an organisation of this nature, but in general they were absolutely willing to help, despite the absence of a member of the town council or, indeed, of the locality at all on the Board of Governors.
Unfortunately, from the first discipline was such that the boys started making trouble almost straight away. Had they not done so, things may have been very different, because the sympathies of the neighbourhood were directed towards helping the whole scheme, and these were in a measure alienated from the beginning. If you want the local people to help, please make certain that discipline is adequate ab initio. Unfortunately, the trouble has continued, and in the case of which I speak the damage done to neighbourly relations of the locality is now so serious that it will take years to re-establish, if indeed that is ever possible. Most folk are prepared to try, but it is bound to take years for a community to get over a slowly developed sense of insecurity. Unfortunately, a girl was murdered in the neighbourhood early in August. Here I must be very careful and speak with great deliberation, because it would be quite wrong even to hint that a boy in the school was responsible. I do not do this. The police have been unable to trace the murderer, and surely they would have done so had the boy been an inmate of the school. But an event of this kind, coming on top of these years of minor trouble, must affect a small community, especially—and this is my point, my Lords—when there is already a feeling of unease which arises from the absence of adequate local representation on the board. I shall return to this point as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, spoke on the subject.
Your Lordships know that I am not a "hang 'em and flog 'em" type, but I would also have you know that I was mercilessly beaten at my "prep" school to an extent I now know to have been quite excessive, though it did not seem to occur to me at the time, because I was
1696
a high-spirited and tough boy, but a bit lonely and introspective as my parents were in India, and perhaps for that reason I was a little stubborn and self-sufficient. But whether that treatment, which has eventually landed me in your Lordships' House, was successful or not, I will leave to your Lordships to judge. I say this because I know what it feels like to be at both ends of the stick as, like many of your Lordships, I have as a prefect dispensed the rough and generally fair justice at a public school. So my lesson No. 2 is, I believe, within limits, as the right reverend Prelate has said, that "spare the rod and spoil the child" still holds good.
By implication I have imputed blame for a really dreadful state of affairs to the school authorities, dreadful because the pattern of life of the whole neighbourhood—
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, may I interrupt? I do not think the right reverend Prelate said anything about "sparing the rod and spoiling the child", although perhaps I should leave it to the right reverend Prelate to make that statement.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. What I said was that I was one of those who hoped that corporal punishment would disappear.
LORD FERRIER: Then I mis-heard. I must say that I thought with some surprise that he had said the reverse. I therefore withdraw my words. As I was saying, the situation has altered the pattern of life of the neighbourhood, but—and this is my next point—the school authorities are not altogether to blame. The original plan which I have outlined, regarding boys who were likely to be rehabilitated in the minimum of time, has been abandoned, and the school has been sent boys with a number of convictions, I believe, despite the objections or, if not objections, protests from the headmaster and governors. Lesson No. 3, so far as I can see, seems to be that approved schools should be regarded as educational establishments and not confused with reformatory functions. That point has been made in the debate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, made it to me in the Library before the debate.

1697
How can such a collection of boys as they now are make fair use of unsupervised liberty? They smoke; they use dreadful language in the street; they call their masters by their christian names, and one senior boy and a young assistant matron spent part of a holiday together under the same roof. Is it altogether surprising that there are some who say, "If at one end of the scale Court Lees can be closed down out of hand, for goodness' sake close this one down"? I do not say it myself, but this is a reasonable deduction from what is happening in the neighbourhood. I will not continue on this point, but I have said nothing which has not already appeared in the Press and can be read by anybody.
Incidentally, the Member of Parliament for the constituency is meeting the Provost of the town on Friday, and we must hope that something will come out of this meeting. The Provost was, I think, put on the board only in 1965, after the first real outcry about the trouble relating to the school. There had been too much secrecy, certainly, until he and another member of the community joined the board. I think there has been too much secrecy, and secrecy only leads to rumours and to suspicions. So my lesson No. 4, which is like No. 1, is this. I feel that you should keep the public informed if you want to avoid rumours.
That leads me to my last point, which is this. The spread of the governing body of an approved school is a matter which requires infinite attention; and this matter has been touched on at length by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, whose speech in that respect I welcomed. It would be very easy to pour scorn on the pathetic, odd-man-out, class-conscious claptrap which appeared in a letter The Guardian published, and which is an Appendix to the Report we are considering. I refer to the first paragraph of that letter. All I would say is that I trust we shall remember that very large sums of public money, every penny of it public money—and I use those words deliberately because they also appear in this letter, in the same paragraph, in Appendix A to which I referred—have been, and are being, spent I believe extravagantly and unwisely, and the public in the neighbourhood are entitled to demand that no unreasonable burden
1698
should be placed on their shoulders by their having to suffer additional strains and stresses from an institution of this kind.
While admitting that some people—some Socialists I am afraid—are disposed to harry private charity and voluntary service, the personnel of boards of governors should be spread through all walks of life, and include a representative number of local people able to give their work and their time and their thought to it. This is lesson No. 5, which links up with what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said. Finally, as I see it, there should never be the feeling—this is a point upon which the noble Earl and the right reverend Prelate have touched—that there is a "big brother" at work somewhere and that some of it may be a covering up operation.
4.48 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, unlike other Members of this House who have spoken in this debate to-day, I myself have never visited Court Lees school, and I certainly have not spoken to members of the staff of the school and the professional organisations concerned since the result of the Gibbens Inquiry was published. I speak, therefore, with no special knowledge of this particular school whatsoever, and am as a result more inclined to say something about the approved school service in general rather than about Court Lees in particular. But I must confess that, having listened to the debate to-day, particularly to the speech of the right reverend Prelate, I have begun to wonder whether the allegations of injustice or justice, as the case might be, might perhaps not have arisen here to-day if the Home Secretary had followed another course of action.
At the outset of the debate I thought, and I still think, that it was right to hold the Inquiry, and I firmly believe that the Home Secretary was right to take the decision he did. In the light of the Gibbens Report, there was excessive corporal punishment in this school; the Home Office Approved School Rules had been broken, and corporal punishment was used as a first, rather than a last, resort. When the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, spoke earlier he mentioned that one of the possibilities was that the

1699
papers in this case might have been submited to the Director of Public Prosecutions. In view of the remarks of the right reverend Prelate about injustice, and as one who thinks that the proper place for justice is a court of law, where the due processes of law can be followed, I should like to ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House, when he concludes this debate and sums up for the Government, to say whether this was one of the courses of action which the Home Secretary considered.
I would remind your Lordships that if this school had been a private school, where the parents paid fees for their boys, a case would most probably have been brought to a court on the basis of the observations of three eminent medical specialists, as quoted in paragraph 57 of the Report. They apparently, in a hospital setting, would have felt bound to report the situation to the police or other authorities with a view to criminal proceeedings. Recently in the case of a private school where allegations of this kind were made a case was taken to the court. The court found the case proved, and the headmaster was found guilty and punished.
Some of the things that have been said in this debate to-day are, to say the least, unfortunate. Until this debate took place it seemed to me that closure was the only alternative open to the Home Secretary, in the light of Mr. Gibbens's clear Report. What were, after all, the alternatives other than the one I have just mentioned? What alternative had he if he was not convinced that the managers of the school were willing to dismiss the masters who had been found to have used excessive corporal punishment on three, two, or, I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, even one boy? It is enough that one boy should suffer excessive punishment for those responsible to have had their attention drawn to the fact that they had broken the Approved School Rules and were therefore subject to a full inquiry of this kind.
Moreover, I think the Home Secretary was right, if I understood the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, correctly, to insist that there should be no victimisation of any other member of the staff of the school. If the Home Secretary was not satisfied on both grounds, what possible alternative did he have? I should have liked to
1700
hear the debate which would have taken place in this House if the Home Secretary had delayed taking action in the light of the findings of this Report. I should also have liked to see the terms of the Motion that would have then been put down. Here was an Inquiry by a distinguished member of the Bar which is quite specific in its findings. A further inquiry with boys continuing in the school at that stage would only have delayed the whole matter. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, knows only too well the heavy personal responsibilities a Home Secretary carries in a case such as this, where boys are deprived of their liberty on a court order and the grave responsibility this places on a Home Secretary. In my view the Home Secretary was absolutely correct in the action he took.
It is, of course, extremely unfortunate that this was the only action he could take. It not only cast a slur on the whole of the approved school system, which many of us know to be unjustified, but also caused a disruption in the life of these boys, who need above all continuity of care of the right kind. Of course this was a disturbing and disrupting decision, but it was nevertheless, right. It arose because of the strange isolation of the approved school system which stems from its history.
If I may refer to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, none of us, in any part in this House would wish to decry in any way the outstanding philanthropy of those people who over a hundred years ago rescued the children from our adult prisons, where they rotted, and provided reformatory schools for their care and training instead. These were the origins of our present approved school system and no one would say that at the time they were wrong. As a result of their efforts, delinquent children in England received education in the reformatory schools, and later in the industrial schools, at a time when law-abiding children were not receiving education and were going hungry.
The situation to-day is totally different, when the frontiers of knowledge and of social provision, particularly in the field of child care and mental health and education, have advanced. We know that these children need help, not separation in a penal system. The major change in

1701
our educational provision for disturbed children has arisen since the 1944 Education Act when, for the first time, society recognised a category of maladjusted children who required special help and education. Since then schools for handicapped children—for maladjusted children are handicapped—have been developed, but the approved school system is still isolated from the broad general development of the education system. Similarly, because of the rather unusual nature of the approved schools, which lies in the history of their foundation, structure and management, many of them—indeed all but the local authority schools—have stayed outside the general stream of the thought and development in child care practice.
No Government can take credit for our present system. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, referred to the fact that the last occasion on which this House debated the approved school system was on the report of the disturbances at Carlton School. With the greatest respect, I would suggest to him that this House debated it again at length when he himself was Minister of State at the Home Office and discussions were proceeding in this House on the Children and Young Persons Bill—a Bill in which I think the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, takes great pride; and with some justification.
That Bill extended our social legislation, providing that local authorities should care for children who are deprived of a normal home life, to include the responsibility for preventing the need for them to be received into care or come before a juvenile court. Several of my noble friends on this side of the House, and indeed in another place, took the opportunity on that occasion to criticise the approved school system and to suggest that it was ready for radical change; but the Government of the day took no action whatsoever, except for some useful tidying-up legislation which had arisen from the recommendation of the Ingleby Report.
I was a little sad when I heard the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, taunting the noble Earl the Leader of the House on "Longfordiana". "Longfordiana" was not thought up in isolation. If the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, were to read the contemporary Report of the Kilbrandon Committee on children and young persons in Scotland he would find that it
1702
was even more forthright, and particularly in regard to the residential care and training of those who at present come before our juvenile courts. The Longford Report was preceded by a series of discussions based on the thought and practice of people who themselves worked in the residential child care and in the education fields; and if I had any criticism of our Government to-day it would not be of the Home Secretary and his action over Court Lees but of the Government's failure so far to introduce any new legislation bringing up to date the law relating to children and young persons, and the necessary supportive services for their care and education.
As I sat here in June and July, when we were considering a major Criminal Justice Bill, which was admittedly long overdue, I could not help regretting that we were not then in sight of a new Children and Young Persons Bill incorporating progressive thought in this field. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has given us some indication to-day of the way in which he sees the approved school system developing which we shall all study with great care. I believe he said that he saw the approved schools in future as part of a comprehensive child care system. I am not sure whether our thinking has gone far enough on this subject. At present, the approved school system is the residuary legatee of every other service for children and the children and young people in the approved schools to-day are suffering from multiple rejection of almost every kind. Many of them have been expelled from day schools, from special schools, and some even cannot be contained in children's homes. I fear if we concentrate all our efforts on that end of the problem we shall fail to do what we ought as a society to be doing, namely, to prevent children from becoming so damaged, so disturbed, so handicapped, that we have to think mainly in terms of provision for what has been called "the dark end of the spectrum".
As a member of the Seebohm Committee which is currently investigating the organisation of the local authority personal social services I am a little inhibited from expressing my thoughts in this respect. I suspect that the noble Earl the Leader of the House, when he replies, will say that the Government are

1703
waiting impatiently for our Report. But let us hope that the Government, too, are having some thoughts on these very difficult matters. I hope they are already looking far more widely into these problems and without trespassing on the possible recommendations of the Seebohm Committee it seems that this is not a job for the Home Office alone.
In January, 1966, there were 13,000 children in England awaiting places in special schools. Over 9,000 of those children were educationally subnormal and well over 1,000 were maladjusted. A large number of children needing forms of special education are in independent schools and there is a grave shortage of local authority schools. Eighty-three per cent., of those handicapped children being educated in private schools unrecognised by the Secretary of State for Education and Science were maladjusted. I am well aware that the Government have mounted a major building programme in the field of special education because of the tremendous backlog that they inherited in this particular sector. Schools are going up, but in London alone there are some 48 children waiting for day school places and another 124 waiting for boarding places. I do not have to describe to your Lordships what uncertainty this kind of delay causes to parents and children who need this help, let alone to juvenile court magistrates.
We know also that it is pure chance whether a child is deemed maladjusted and goes to a school for the maladjusted or, alternatively, commits an offence and is committed to an approved school for three years. The approved schools have coped for years with everybody's problems. Not only have they coped with children who should have been in maladjusted schools; they have also coped with children who should have been in mental hospitals. There are only approximately 300 beds available to-day in special units for disturbed adolescents, and any head of an approved school will tell you of the complete chaos that one disturbed adolescent in a residential setting can cause. I know, and I am very glad to know, that the Home Secretary, together with the Minister of Health, is at last taking action on this matter, but since the early 'fities, eminent and distinguished members of the London Juvenile Courts Committee, such as Dame Eileen Younghusband and
1704
Mrs. Mary Stewart, have been urging special provision for disturbed children who at present have to be committed by juvenile courts to approved schools because nobody else can provide for them. This is why I feel so sad that the Court Lees incident has added even greater uncertainty to the work of the approved schools.
My Lords, the whole system requires change. Some could well become schools for maladjusted children in the future while others become children's homes providing the very special care many of these children need, on the lines the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has so sensitively indicated. And I hope that these changes will happen very soon, for the present position cannot continue indefinitely without grave risk of further crises. The staff in the approved schools has been undervalued, underpaid and overworked for years. The building programmes mounted in 1960 have undoubtedly improved the physical conditions both of the schools themselves and, in certain cases, of staff accommodation. But the staff of the approved schools would be the first to admit that radical change is needed. It was, after all, some two and a half years ago that I went to the annual conference of the Association of Approved School Headmasters, Headmistresses and Matrons to explain to them the recommendations of the Longford Committee in relation to the care, treatment and training of children and young persons. I thought I was walking into the lions' den and that I was going to be eaten alive; but in fact there was general agreement on the need for change, and particularly on the direction that that change should take. Moreover, the evidence that the Association submitted to the Royal Commission on the Penal System was all for radical change too. The staff want an end to uncertainty. I hope that when the noble Earl the Leader of the House replies to this debate he can give us some indication of how soon the Government intend to act on this matter.
5.5 p.m.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, we all owe a great debt to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for having initiated this debate, and not least, I think, for starting off by saying that this was not a debate about corporal punishment in schools. Very

1705
strong passions are always aroused on this issue. Indeed, a noble Lord in the Lobby said to me how much he felt his career was owed to the fact that he had been thoroughly well beaten at school, and he felt this so strongly that he offered to show me the scars which he assured me remained with him to this day, But I told him that I was sure your Lordships would take those as shown. I think we need to try to get into the frame of mind, which I thought the noble Earl showed, of being extremely dispassionate and judicial, just as Mr. Gibbens was in his examination in his Report. I think it is important to get into this frame of mind because I am not entirely sure that the right reverend Prelate was quite in this frame of mind when he elaborated on Mr. Cook's eccentricities. I will come to that later.
It is important to get into such a judicial state of mind because the relations between a governing body, the headmaster and his assistant staff are possibly the most delicate in the world. Ideally, when an assistant master on a staff thinks that something really deplorable is going on in the school he ought to go to the headmaster and make perfectly plain what his discontent is. The headmaster, ideally, ought to listen to him, and if he rejects the assistant master's allegations ought to invite the assistant master to attend a meeting of the governing body and put his case to them. When the assistant master has withdrawn the headmaster should make his case, and then the governing body, ideally, ought, in the absence of the headmaster—and despite their loyalty to the headmaster, which must always be a very great thing, because after all the governing body has usually appointed the headmaster—to consider the matter not merely in relation to the headmaster or the staff but with special reference to their duties to the boys.
This is ideally what should happen. But I am afraid that the history of schools shows that this very rarely takes place. I have had some twenty years' experience on the governing bodies of schools and also, in my historical research, had to read large numbers of biographies and histories of schools. It is noticeable how time and again in the major rows which take place in schools these ideal
1706
conditions are never reproduced. They are not reproduced, I suppose, for many reasons. Your Lordships will remember the character in Kipling's Stalky and Co. There is a master who, when referring to the schoolmastering profession, says, "Hey-ho, ours is a belittling life". And of course there is something in the tensions which build up in monastic communities which boarding schools often are which do lead to people losing their heads. And here, it seems to me, Mr. Cook lost his.
It was wrong for Mr. Cook, as an assistant master, to write to the Press, and even more wrong to write pseudonymously. In the highly satirical picture the right reverend Prelate drew of Mr. Cook it is obviously open to question as to how wise he was in giving the number of yellow tickets he gave. I would ask the right reverend Prelate to change one thing he said in his speech. He said the effect of giving a yellow ticket must naturally lead to the boy being beaten. I wonder if it is so. It is for the headmaster to decide, on the basis of these yellow tickets, whether in fact this kind of punishment should have been given. Mr. Cook's behaviour was indefensible, as the behaviour of assistant masters who complain, who feel driven by their conscience to complain, in cases of this kind often is indefensible.
Let us now turn to the headmaster's conduct. The headmaster here, I think, did not take in any way seriously the complaint put to him. I will come back to his conduct in a moment. Moreover, it is quite clear that the managers certainly did not take their duties as responsibly as I think they should have done in the first place. They did not realise that here was a case of potential dynamite and that, however great their loyalty to Mr. Haydon and their suspicion of Mr. Cook, their first loyalty was to the boys; and their first duty was to sift the facts. They should not have waited for an investigation to be made by somebody else; they should have launched the investigation themselves.
May I turn just for a moment (here I do not want to criticise the headmaster, any more than I should wish to criticise Mr. Cook gravely, because, as I say, in these circumstances tensions and passions

1707
run high) and look at what the headmaster did. When the investigation had been concluded he had been requested by the Home Office, so I understand, not to carry out beatings of boys unless the discipline of the school was really going to be impeded. It is rumoured that although this undertaking had, in the opinion of the Home Office apparently, been accepted, nevertheless while the Report was still in the process of being written, he again beat 10 boys—all for offences which really could not be said to be endangering the discipline of the school.
What is more—again I must ask my noble friend Lord Stonham to correct me if I am wrong—I have heard a rumour that two or three of the boys from the 10 who were beaten at that time, were beaten for the school crime of masturbation. This would have been perfectly appropriate punishment for a Victorian schoolmaster to inflict. When I say that, I am not sneering at the Victorian school masters and at our ancestors. A hundred years ago there was a book which circulated widely in Britain written by William Acton, a medical treatise called The Functions and Disorders of the Reproductive Organs. In this book, Acton, as a medical man, maintained that the practice of masturbation led inevitably first to physical debility and then to insanity. It was under that medical theory that so often in Victorian times masturbation was treated as a major school crime, and something that could be expiated only with the most severe penalties of corporal punishment.
Of course, in our present state of medical knowledge, which has enormously changed, if you were to ask to-day any headmaster or any house master in our leading boarding schools; if you asked any school doctor, and, I should have thought, if you asked any priest, who no doubt when giving advice to his flock might say that, while it was important to maintain purity, at the same time this was not a mortal sin—if you asked any of these people for their opinion as to whether corporal punishment was the right kind of penalty for that particular practice, I am certain you would get an almost unqualified "No". This is why I think this case has so many overtones which do not always appear on the surface.
1708
It would be quite wrong, I think, to believe that the row started merely over the case of one boy's excessive punishment, though I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, that one boy's punishment, if it is unjust, is enough to institute an inquiry. What I think was the impression the Home Office formed from the whole of this melancholy affair was that here was a headmaster, an admirable man in many ways, but whose ideas of punishment were really out of all relation with modern practice in schools.
May I now turn to the action of the managers in all this? I do not think they realised how serious a matter this was, because they do not seem to have understood that it really was an important matter that the headmaster should not in any way exceed his powers. It is particularly important that a headmaster does not exceed his powers in an approved school, because the parents are not in a position to complain. That point has been made. But it is also, of course, particularly important that he does not exceed his powers because, after all, an approved school is a school to which children have been sent for breaking the rules. If the headmaster himself breaks the rules then what are the children to make of it? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The answer, of course, to that, is that it is the managers' job, the governing body's job, to see that the custodians keep the rules. Throughout, I think, the managers' attitude was one of understandable but blind loyalty to the headmaster, and a belief that it was impossible that anything could be wrong in the school when somebody of instability had accused him.
That is why. I suppose, they first opposed the Inquiry that took place under Mr. Gibbens. They next refused to instruct the headmaster not to beat any more boys unless discipline was really threatened. But when, in fact, this principle had been accepted, the managers supported the headmaster when he defended his right to have beaten those 10 boys on the grounds that, after all, he was the only judge of the matter. They opposed the headmaster's removal, and the chairman and his successor really had only one object: to sever Mr. Cook's connection with the school. I do not

1709
think, reading the Report, one feels that they had any conception of the criticism to which this school could be open. When the Report was published I do not think they had any inkling that it probably would criticise them; and they never at any time realised that here they were in the middle of a serious row—and not merely a row, but something which in fact involved the moral principles on which the very school was founded. I fear that a great many of the difficulties which have arisen as regards the employment of staff in the future, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, have been due to the intransigence of the managers in the hope that public opinion will come over to their side. I greatly hope that public opinion will not come over to their side.
When the noble Earl, in introducing this debate, said that it was most important to maintain our confidence in approved schools and that he feared that the Home Secretary (to whom he paid, I am glad to say, a most generous tribute) was not by his action doing anything to establish confidence in the approved schools, I would make one reply to that. It is even more important that there should be confidence in the Home Office. There has not in the past always been confidence in the Home Office and its officials. There has not always been the confidence that, in cases not merely of this kind but over the multitude of things with which that Office deals, they would be willing, if things went wrong under their management, not merely to institute inquiries but to admit that some of the people who were directly responsible to the Home Office might conceivably be wrong.
One of the great things that I think has happened during the tenure of office of the present Home Secretary is the confidence that some of us, at any rate, feel. We believe that when questions are put to him they will get a really fair hearing; that when some official has made a mistake, often merely a minor mistake, it will be generously admitted and steps will be taken to put it right; and that the Home Office is no longer now simply an implacable barrier to any kind of investigation. It is in fact becoming one of the most liberal Departments in the whole of the Ministries in Whitehall.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes his seat, will he allow me to correct something he said, I have no doubt quite inadvertently? I think he said that Mr. Haydon caned ten boys while the Report was being written. This is not so. Mr. Haydon caned ten boys between May 15 and June 23 while the preliminary inquiries were going on, but the formal hearing did not begin until June 26.
LORD ANNAN: I apologise to the noble Earl for my mistake. I am afraid that I had to rely very much on what I heard.
5.22 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, many noble Lords have already expressed their thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for initiating this debate, and may I add mine, since we are dealing with a very important subject. As is probably inevitable when one trains the microscope on one very small corner of our country's affairs, some of us must find ourselves treading over the same ground, albeit treading in a different direction and with a different kind of emphasis.
I do not suppose there are many noble Lords or Ladies who spent the early years of their life within the precincts of an approved school. That was my own experience. Let me hasten to add that that was not because any signs of delinquency were showing themselves—not at that time, though perhaps later!—but because my father was the bandmaster and music master of two approved schools of this kind. In one of them we had to live on the premises and our house was just inside the main gate of the school—a great gaunt, sombre, prison-like gate. I hasten to assure my noble friend Lord Stonham that it was a very old school, and the schools of to-day are nothing like that. I believe that my father was quite a good bandmaster, because his boys used to win trophies and band contests all over the country. Whether that was due to the boys' natural love of music, I do not know. Perhaps it was due to his own enthusiasm. I know that he allowed this enthusiasm to overflow into our own domestic circle, and before I had reached the age of 12 he had drilled me to a fairly reasonable standard on the violin and euphonium.

1711
The only reason for mentioning this is to enable me to lead on to my next remark. My father always used to tell me that his band boys were among the best behaved in the school; there were very few absconders among them. I do not know whether it was a fact that even in those days music had "charms to soothe the savage breast". I think it was rather that these boys were able to cultivate a hobby and indulge in a form of what one might call extra-curricula study which gave them very great pride in what they were doing. I know from my own evidence that many of these boys made good later in life. We used to get them, years later, coming round to our home, spick and span in their uniform as Army bandsmen, others dressed in neat blue serge suits—which in those days was a symbol of success in civil life. I think it is good that these boys, helpless and hopeless though some may be, should have an opportunity to discover some latent talent which lies within them and should be given a chance for that talent to be developed so that they should have an opportunity to fulfil themselves in their lives.
It is a fact that boys and girls who go into approved schools are not little angels. The majority are offenders; and not first offenders at that. Some of them are downright vicious, and measures are necessary to ensure some kind of forceful discipline. I am not one of those people who denounces corporal punishment per se. I believe that on occasion there might be room for the cane in enforcing discipline; but I also feel that it should be in the background, as the ultimate deterrent, and not the punishment of first instance. There are many punishments which can be awarded in corporate bodies like an approved school. There are what in the Army we used to call extra fatigues; there is deprivation of entertainment, and there are many other things which can be done to impose a penalty on a boy before indulgence in brutal whipping has to begin.
We have before the House this afternoon the Report of the Inquiry by an eminent Q.C. into the affairs at Court Lees school. I am unhappy about several of the aspects of this Report and this Inquiry. I am most unhappy about the anonymous letter method with which the whole thing was started. I think that
1712
if Mr. Cook had a grievance he should have gone to his headmaster and asked the headmaster to pass him to the next appropriate level in the hierarchy, so that he could put the case before the managers; and then, if he failed to obtain satisfaction, he could have asked the managers to let him go to the Home Office or to the particular inspector responsible for that part of the country. The old Army method where one went through the corporal to the sergeant, and through the sergeant to the sergeant-major, has a lot to be said for it when one is trying to enforce reasonable discipline.
I am also most unhappy about the feature of the Report which says that the teachers were not allowed to be present when the boys were giving evidence against them. I am not a lawyer and have not a legal mind—I am far too sentimental for that. But I have been chairman of a magistrates' court for many years, and I should think it most improper of me if, while the prosecution witnesses were giving their evidence, I ordered the defendant out of court, even though he might be legally represented.
Another feature of this Report which does not please me very much is that the Q.C. himself admits that he received much evidence which did not bear directly on the allegations that had been made. A further point was that many of the incidents referred to in the Report occurred long before the current headmaster had taken up his duties. It may have been necessary to sketch in some of the background, but I think that the action of including those incidents had the effect of plastering a great blob of bright colour against the background of this particular picture which was likely to prejudice the headmaster, not perhaps so much in the estimation of the Q.C. who was conducting the Inquiry, but certainly in the estimation of the public at large. The cumulative effect was something which counted against him, yet only part of it was his responsibility.
There were references to Mr. Cook, and he has been criticised. I do not know the man: I had never heard of him before this incident: and I have never communicated with him. Nor do I have the slightest idea what kind of man he is. But I criticise Mr. Cook for having accumulated one case after another of alleged

1713
brutality over a period of weeks, and perhaps months; and, instead of promptly reporting those cases to his superior, he entered them, metaphorically, in his little black book until he had enough to justify his writing the anonymous letter to the newspaper. Mr. Cook might have been observing the rhetorical rule that the cumulative effect of a number of incidents probably would make more impression than one isolated case. But one feels that all the time, week after week, while he was accumulating the evidence in these individual cases, one after another, there were boys who need not have been beaten if Mr. Cook had promptly taken the necessary disciplinary steps.
We have heard about Mr. Cook's unusual personality. Whatever awkwardness there may have been about Mr. Cook—and we all know that there are awkward people in all spheres of life; you find it in an Army unit, in a newspaper office, on a local authority, and there are such people who are always out of step with the march of affairs—the fact remains that, after discounting all those cases which were not proven, there remained a large number of cases where breaches of the regulations were proved.
And what did they amount to? There is, first of all, the question of the cane; a cane which was thicker than the regulation cane, a cane which was hidden away in a recess in the desk and not exhibited to public view as it always used to be in the school to which I went. The headmaster knew that this was a non-regulation cane; he knew that he could obtain the regulation cane from the Home Office, free, merely by asking for it. But he used that cane, he used it persistently and, according to the evidence, he used no other cane at all. It is true, of course, that those canes were purchased long before he took over the headmastership, but the fact still remains that in inheriting those canes he also inherited the custom of using them which had prevailed in the school before. He should not have done it, and in that respect his conduct, I submit, is inexcusable.
He also administered punishment on the spot, whether it be in the middle of the night or in the daytime. Instant punishment, like instant coffee or instant so many things which we have in these days, is sometimes justifiable, but it has the drawback that it is likely to be
1714
administered in hot blood; it is likely to be administered without a full inquiry, which might reveal that the person being punished was not the ringleader of an incident; and it might also prevent any mitigating circumstances from receiving proper consideration.
We know from the evidence and the findings that some of these boys were thrashed over their pyjamas. The headmaster knew perfectly well that this was contrary to the regulations. We also have the evidence of the coloured pictures. I think it is' accepted by the experts, although some dispute has been voiced here this afternoon, that those pictures have not been doctored, and they disclose a state of affairs which Professor Simpson—a man eminent in his own sphere—said would have caused him to go to the police had he been considering this matter in another context. Then we have the quotation in the Report of one case where a boy was beaten with "excessive severity".
I dismiss what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark has said. Mr. Cook may be a peculiar kind of person. We are not trying Mr. Cook here, we are trying the headmaster, and despite everything that Mr. Cook may have done or may not have done the Inquiry Q.C. found that these particular offences were proven without doubt against the headmaster. So I feel that the Home Secretary was perfectly right in the action which he took at the time, and which he has taken subsequently, and I form the opinion that in this school boys were not being given the chance to be reclaimed. The methods being employed in that school would, if anything, have intensified the hatred which those boys naturally felt against society.
I should like to say a word or two about the general question of approved schools as a whole. I hope that this Inquiry, and all the revelations which have been made with regard to this school, will not hamper the approved school system generally, nor undermine the confidence which is felt in it by the general public. I hope it will not have a bad effect upon recruiting, because we know already that many of these schools are running on short staffs.
Something has been said about the pay of those staffs. I do not want to enter

1715
into a discussion of that, but I should occasionally like to see on New Year's Day some signal mark of recognition of the fine work which these great social reformers in these institutions are doing. They have a big task. As your Lordships have heard, they have 8,000 boys and girls to deal with, though naturally there are more boys than girls. I do not know whether girls are more virtuous than boys, or merely that they are cleverer at not being found out, but the ratio is about seven boys to one girl. There are about 5,000 of them released from the schools each year, and their stay in these schools is usually from about one year to about two and a half years.
What I think may have surprised some of your Lordships is the fact that so many of these schools are not conducted under public auspices. Of the 123 schools in the country, only 30 are controlled by local authorities. The other 93 are controlled by religious organisations, very worthy organisations whom nobody can criticise; by charitable organisations, again held in high esteem by the public; and many of them by little ad hoc groups of eminent citizens in a locality, whom again nobody would wish to criticise. But I have felt for quite a long time that we as a community are in the habit of looking upon these as public institutions, and therefore public institutions they should really be. Of course, the majority of the boys and girls who go into these schools are offenders. There are only about 700 out of the 8,000—
LORD STONHAM: Not the majority of the girls, my Lords. Of the girls, 60 per cent. have not committed an offence at all.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, my experience of girls is that they never commit offences. I was saying that about 700 out of the 8,000 children are non-offenders. The remainder are offenders, and usually something more than first offenders at that. Of course, reclamation and reform does not take place in all cases. In recent years about 300 boys have been sent to borstal from these approved schools, and that is not really surprising when you consider the particular character group from which they come. Also, in recent years, it has been found that after being released from the
1716
schools about half the children commit another offence within three years. Sometimes, of course, they are not serious offences, but those are the statistics.
On the brighter side, I think it is nice to find that nearly every child leaving an approved school finds employment within a week of his discharge, although I am rather sad to say that in the majority of those cases the work is in unskilled rather than skilled employment. The unfortunate thing about this is that in unskilled employment you are likely to get casual spells of work and worklessness, and, of course, if a young fellow who has been a year or so out of an approved school finds himself idle, it may mean that somebody finds work for idle hands to do.
But there is a brighter side still to that. The report of the after-care authorities, issued not so very long ago, showed that there was one approved schoolboy at university, that there were two girls who had completed their teacher training course, that there were two more girls who had become State Registered Nurses, that there were nine boys out of the A.T.C. contingent in a school who had become fully-fledged glider pilots, and that there was one boy who had received a public gratuity of £50 for helping to apprehend a bank robber in one of our provincial towns.
But that is not all. These boys are encouraged to engage themselves in useful social work. We hear of them going to help the staffs of the Cheshire Homes for the Disabled, of painting and decorating village halls, and of doing the gardening for old-age pensioners in their locality. Despite the shortcomings of the present approved schools—and there must be some improvements—I think they are really doing very worthy work in saving these young people from crime, and putting them on the road towards taking their place in a decent society.
I said that there must be improvements. Before I came into your Lordships' House this afternoon, I had a few of these improvements in my mind. One of them arose from the fact that an increasing number of the entrants into approved schools in these days are boys and girls who are suffering some serious mental trouble. Is it fair that they should be grouped along with normal children in one school?

1717
Then there are the 700 who go into these schools as in need of care and protection because they have evil parents or the home environment is not good. These children have to mix with the young offenders. Now it is an arguable point—it is one of these two-bladed arguments—as to whether the good boys will have a good effect on the bad boys or whether the bad boys will have a bad effect on the good boys. I have the feeling that there is some kind of Gresham's law here which means that the badness of the bad boys will work itself off on to some of the good boys.
Before I came into this House this afternoon and heard my noble friend Lord Stonham, I felt that a more drastic system of inspectorship was needed: not necessarily any change in the system of visits by individual inspectors, but the restoration of the former system whereby a group of inspectors descended upon a school and examined it in depth for several days. But my noble friend has to some extent modified my view on that. I feel that the training these boys receive should be aimed more at fitting them for skilled employment than unskilled, because they are already under a handicap and they do not want to have to suffer the further handicap which is likely to descend upon them if they find themselves in an industry with casual employment.
I want to see school managers made to take a more active part in the management of these schools. In this particular case I am not satisfied with the part that the school managers played, and I hope that there will be more activity by school managers in the future. I had also thought that, as there were only 30 out of the 123 schools in the country which were under local authorities, they should all be put under local government administration and control; and, alternatively, I had thought that probably they should become direct Home Office institutions. But after hearing the remarks of my noble friend Lord Stonham, in which he lifted the curtain on the reforms that the Home Office has in mind, I think that many of the changes that I wanted to make will be made in a form which is even more acceptable to me than the one in which I had first conceived them. I shall look forward to those improvements with great pleasure.
1718
Finally, my Lords, we are here spending public money. It costs over £21 a week to keep a boy or a girl in an approved school, and we really ought to see that we are getting full value for our money, not only financially but in terms of human happiness as well. I hope that the Court Lees case will not besmirch the escutcheon of approved schools generally. Many unpleasant things, many unwelcome things, have come to light as a result of this Inquiry, but I think the Inquiry was a good one and I think the decision which the Home Secretary subsequently made was a good one. If out of all this trouble there can come a better era for our approved schools and a bigger part for them to play in rehabilitating some of the more sick young members of our society, then the whole thing will have been well worth while.
5.44 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I have listened to this debate, and there is one particular aspect I should like to raise with the noble Earl who is to reply in the hope that he can allay some of the qualms that I have felt on hearing what my noble friend Lord Jellicoe has said, and on hearing the speech of the right reverend Prelate—and, indeed, that of the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland. I am not myself in the least critical of the action taken by the Home Secretary when he received this information, in appointing an Inquiry and in causing an Inquiry to be held. I think that was clearly the right course. What I am worried about is what happened thereafter.
In the course of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, said that we were trying the headmaster. We are not—and nor was this Inquiry. He was not on trial. He has been sentenced and punished without trial, and that is what worries me. The terms of reference were just to find out whether:
"punishment has been administered to boys in the school otherwise than in accordance with the Approved School Rules; and into any other similar allegations of irregular punishment at the school; and to report".
My Lords, that is not a trial. One must bear this in mind: that on the findings of this Inquiry those who inflicted the corporal punishment were guilty of criminal offences. I thought that the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, was a very shrewd one

1719
that is, had this matter been considered by the Director of Prosecutions?
If we consider what would have happened if this Inquiry had been before the ordinary courts and contrast the procedure here, it is a little illuminating. Many years ago I had to defend a schoolmaster charged with administering excessive corporal punishment in an elementary school. At the trial then, of course, the witnesses had to give their evidence in court in the presence of the accused; and if it had been heard afterwards that a man had been condemned on evidence heard in his absence, behind closed doors, those who are seeking to defend the action taken in this case would have been the first to protest. It is that side of the case which bothers me.
The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, said that he was very concerned about the conduct of what I might call the chief witness for the prosecution. It is clear from the Report itself that in certain respects he was not a satisfactory witness, and that his conduct was not wholly satisfactory. That has become even clearer from the information given by the right reverend Prelate. What I must confess staggers me is, if he was of the belief that there was excessive caning throughout the school, and that he was justified in preferring these 11 charges, why he should have sent in so many yellow tickets, which had the consequence of there being caning of other boys. I find that difficult to understand.
However that may be, it still does not mean, as the noble Lord, Lord Leather-land, pointed out, that some of the criticisms are not well-founded. There has been criticism that there were breaches of the Rules—non-entry in the punishment book, and matters of that sort. I suppose that in every school and in every establishment one could find instances, if one went into it, where the detailed rules had not been kept with complete precision; but the gravamen of the case here, surely, is that at this school excessive, brutal punishment was inflicted by means of the cane on boys—and that is a charge of a criminal offence.
My Lords, I can well understand the reactions of the Home Secretary and, indeed, of the public when this Report was published—a feeling of shock and a feeling that some drastic action must be
1720
taken. That very often is one's immediate reaction. Sometimes it is justified, and sometimes it is not. That is what worries me. Take the case of the headmaster and the deputy headmaster. Can one really say that they have had a fair trial on these charges? Or, indeed, that the punishment inflicted on them is fair? If the case be, as I understand it is from my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, that there is no opportunity of their getting further employment in approved schools either as a headmaster or deputy headmaster, I must say that that seems to me to be extremely harsh. I should have thought that if anyone could learn from bitter experience to avoid conduct of that kind in the future it would be these two unfortunate individuals. I would put in a plea, even now, that that should be reconsidered.
For these two men to have become a headmaster and a deputy headmaster must mean that they had shown considerable skill and considerable ability in their work. Is it right that they should be permanently deprived of their employment and the approved schools service permanently deprived of their help, because of these unfortunate incidents (if Mr. Gibbens be right) with three boys? I cannot think it is. There has been no trial. We are told first of the boys who gave evidence without the masters being present; we are told that Mr. Gibbens heard such evidence as he wanted. At a trial the defence can call such evidence as it will; there can be evidence of character and of other matters; but that has not happened here. With great respect, I think I can understand how the Home Secretary came to act, but it does not seem to me right. This is why I rise to speak, though I had not intended to do so.
But, my Lords, it does not end with the deputy headmaster and the headmaster, for it would seem from the decision to close Court Lees School just like that, that the conduct of the managers has also been condemned. They, too, have been sentenced without trial. Reading through this Report, I could not see any criticism of the managers of that school. I may have missed it, because I read it only during the course of this debate; but if there is any criticism contained in it I am sure the noble Earl the Leader of the House will draw my attention to it.
But what about the managers? Were they to see, somehow, that correct entries

1721
were made in the punishment book? Are managers supposed to go down and measure the cane in use to see that it is one supplied by the Home Office? Are managers supposed to be present when caning takes place? Where was the fault of the managers in the conduct of the school? I should like to be satisfied that there was some fault on their part—fault of which they were accused and which they had adequate opportunity of explaining, which explanation did not satisfy the Home Secretary and led to the closure of the school with a clear reflection on the managers. I see nothing of that in this Report, and I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham—I did not catch it from his speech—confirmed or denied the statement made by my noble friend that the managers agreed to all the conditions prescribed by the Home Secretary, except one; namely, that they must keep the complainant in their employ. That strikes me as a most astonishing condition to impose.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will allow me to intervene. I do not know whether he heard my speech. I made it clear that the Home Secretary's decision was not based on a single issue. He came to the view, after having a lengthy interview with the managers, that they were unable and unwilling to run Court Lees as a reconstituted school in the way that he would want it run. That was the basic reason for his decision.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I heard the greater part of the noble Lord's speech. It happened that I was not visible, since I sat at the end behind the Bar, but I must have missed that part. Again, I think, there seems to have been an unfortunate sequence of events. I am not saying anything about the ultimate decision; but the decision announced at the time as to the future conduct of the managers clearly implies condemnation of their conduct in relation to the management of the school while these headmasters were there. But there is nothing in the Report, as I see it, to justify that.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble and learned Viscount aware that it is the responsibility of the managers to make an inspection of the punishment books every month, and to be aware of the amount and extent of the punishment?
1722
They were aware; they did nothing about it; and more than that, although according to Mr. Gibbens the offences—if I may use that word—of the deputy were less severe than those of the headmaster, they were not so worried about losing him.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, may I put it to the noble Lord that there is no evidence in this Report that they did not see the punishment book and read it and consider it. There is no suggestion in this Report that the punishment of caning was wrongly inflicted at any time, as entered in the punishment book. You have to put yourself in the position of the managers. They see the entries; can they say from that that the punishment has been inflicted too severely?
My Lords, it is not so much that aspect on which I wish to dwell. I am concerned with what happened afterwards. It seems to me that there has been very unfortunate action, both in relation to the managers and in relation to the two masters. My mind goes back to the time when I sat on what was called a Naval Court Martial Committee. In those days—and it had been so for many years in the Navy—under Section 92 of what was then the Naval Discipline Act if a ship were stranded, lost, destroyed or captured, it was lawful to try before one and the same court martial all the surviving officers and crew of any ship, and without any charge being preferred against them. That went on until 1957. We reported that that was very undesirable, because those who were convicted were not given notice of the charges that were going to be preferred against them, and were not able to produce a proper defence. The cause of the trouble was the confusion between an inquiry and a trial, and merging the two together and trying to make it one operation.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, in my submission, the noble Viscount is making the mistake of regarding the procedure in respect of Court Lees as a disciplinary inquiry. The Naval procedure he mentioned was a disciplinary inquiry. This was not.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, it is a pity that the noble Lord interrupted me just on that point, because in fact the operation of Section 92 was an inquiry and a court martial combined. It was

1723
called a court martial, but it was also an inquiry into the cause of the loss of a ship. The point I am making is a valid one. I think the real trouble is that the Court Lees Inquiry has been treated as if it were a trial: the language used by so many in this debate has substantiated that. It may well be that excessive punishments were applied—I express no view on that. It may be that the headmaster and the deputy headmaster ought to have been punished. But surely the punishment as far as they are concerned, if we can judge by the documents we have seen so far, is excessive. On the documents that have been put before us, the documents on which the Home Secretary acted, there does not seem to me to be any justification for closing the school and condemning the managers as if they were parties to the acts. There is no evidence.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, would the noble and learned Viscount agree that it was not purely on the grounds of the Report that the school was closed? It was on the action of the managers after the initial allegations were made, after the Report was made, and during all the negotiations which the Home Secretary was trying to carry out with the managers. This was the total situation which led the Home Secretary to take the step he did. It was not based on the Report alone.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord may be right, but what he has said does not accord with what my noble friend Lord Jellicoe said had happened. I do not profess to decide between them, but if anything of the nature of what my noble friend said happened, did happen, then the action taken against the managers was open to misapprehension. But, my Lords, I am much more concerned (because I think the managers can defend themselves) not only with justice to the boys—that is terribly important—but with justice to these two individuals. So far as I can see, unless the Home Secretary thinks again, unless the Secretary of State for Education and Science thinks again, they will stand condemned forever, and debarred from following the profession of their choice. That is what concerns me. That is why I hope that, even at this stage, the noble
1724
Earl, Lord Longford, will be able to say that there can be some reconsideration of the matter.
6.1 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we have had a pretty thorough inquest into the affairs of Court Lees. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who has just spoken so powerfully, has done a large part of my job for me by drawing attention to some of the main misgivings that we have over this affair. We believe that the Home Secretary made an error of judgment in deciding to close this school, and it is for that reason that we draw special attention to the matter. We believe that his action has had very serious consequences on the approved school system as a whole and that it may do lasting harm unless something can be done to mitigate its effects. I would emphasise, as did my noble friend Earl Jellicoe at the start of his speech, that we are not seeking to belabour the Government, although we believe we have a fairly powerful stick with which to do it; we are much more concerned in trying to persuade the Home Secretary to change his attitude; to give us a little bit of compromise; to show some willingness to hear our side of the case.
I must say that I was extremely disappointed with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. He seemed to hold out absolutely no hope whatever that we were going to receive any help or consideration from the Home Secretary. The noble Lord slammed the door and, seemingly, was not open to any kind of reconsideration. I hope that the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, may be able to uncover a small chink, especially after having heard some of the pleas made in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, outlined some plans for the future which were extremely interesting, but I seriously believe that these plans will be hampered unless we get the right atmosphere in the approved schools now. I think that the Court Lees affair has adversely affected the whole morale of approved schools.
If I may, in summing up I would suggest that basically we have three reasons for concern. The first is that we believe an injustice has been done to the staff of the school. My noble and

1725
learned friend Viscount Dilhorne pinpointed the fact that we seem to have been involved in a trial by inquiry. The Inquiry set up under Mr. Gibbens was a fact-finding inquiry; I think that is beyond dispute. Its Report is headed Administration of Punishment at Court Lees Approved School and it never went any further than that. The Inquiry was not empowered to take into account any mitigating factors and, quite properly, no evidence was admitted on the merits of the school or of the staff in the course of the Inquiry. This was beyond its terms of reference and therefore such evidence was not admitted.
I must say, my Lords, that I thought the noble Lord, Lord Byers, gave a very false impression of the Inquiry when he said it gave a full impression of what was going on at the school; that was very far from the case. The Inquiry was set up for one specific purpose—to inquire into Mr. Cook's complaint—and that is precisely what it did. But the result of the Inquiry, coupled, it may be, with other inquiries made by the Home Office and other judgments made by the Home Secretary on the management, has been that Mr. Haydon and Mr. Draycon have not only been banned from future employment as a headmaster or deputy headmaster in an approved school but, I understand, have also been told that they will not be employed at all in the residential child care service as a headmaster or a deputy headmaster.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the noble Lord say by whom they have been told this, and in what way?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I understood that was the Home Secretary's decision, but I am open to correction as to exactly what is the position and what they have been told.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the Home Secretary has no responsibility for appointing approved school staff, or indeed any other teaching staff. His sole power in this matter is the ability to approve or to disapprove the appointment of a headmaster of an approved school.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I am glad of that correction. Then I
1726
understand that the Home Secretary said he would not approve their employment as headmaster or deputy headmaster of an approved school in future—it goes no further than that. But nobody has really inquired much into the school itself and the conditions of the school in other ways than the purely disciplinary matters that were inquired into by the Inquiry. Yet I understand that the school was in fact a very good school, and that certainly the headmaster enjoyed the full confidence of his staff. In a Press release on September 1, the staff, with the exception only of Mr. Cook, said:
"We enjoy working with Mr. Haydon, who has earned, receives and appreciates our loyalty. Under his inspiring leadership the school was becoming increasingly stimulating and successful, a fact realised and appreciated by the boys and their parents, many of whom were very distressed at the closure."
My Lords, I would ask you to contrast this attitude on the part of the majority of the staff, with the one exception of Mr. Cook, and the description of his character given in the report of the Inquiry and in the powerful speech by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark.
It would be interesting to know from the noble Earl what was the opinion of the Home Office on the school before this Inquiry arose. What were the reports made as the result of the inspections carried out at the school? Was there any indication in those reports that the Home Office was not satisfied with the school, or with the managers? Or do the reports reflect the opinion of the staff which I have just quoted, that the school was becoming increasingly stimulating and successful? It would be most interesting to know what were the Home Office reports on the school; and if the reports were satisfactory surely this might have been taken into account, side by side with the adverse findings of the Gibbens Inquiry, in treating the case of the headmaster and the deputy headmaster.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's question, although I cannot of course disclose the nature of the Home Office reports, one can say briefly, and without unfairness, that they were satisfactory in some respects and not so satisfactory in others.
LORD ABERDARE: Well, my Lords, that is half-and-half, really; but I hope that the criticisms were not serious criticisms, at any rate, and I feel that some of the good points about the school might have been taken into account.
My Lords, what has really happened, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said, is that we have seen an unjust punishment of the two people concerned as the result of a partial inquiry into one aspect, the disciplinary aspect, of the school. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, who rightly said that we should be conducting this inquiry in as judicial a way as we could, gave us one impression on which I should like to comment, although it is a somewhat unpleasant subject. He spoke about certain beatings that took place after inquiries had been begun into the school. He told us that the headmaster had undertaken that such beatings would not be administered unless the alleged offences were liable to affect the discipline of the school, and that, in spite of this, certain beatings had taken place, for masturbation. We must be judicial about this and I wonder whether that is altogether true, because my information is slightly different. What in fact these boys were beaten for was bullying smaller boys involving mutual masturbation. This, I suggest, is a slightly different matter and does involve the discipline of the school.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I would certainly agree with the noble Lord that if that were the case, that would be a severe disciplinary matter. I would say that I can only speak of rumour: that was my information.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am only suggesting that there should be a fuller and more judicial inquiry into all the circumstances in the school. What has happened? The treatment these two men have received is quite different from the treatment they would have received as teachers in the education service, who are entitled to attend a hearing, and very different from the procedure recommended by the Home Office for the investigation of complaints against members of staffs of approved schools.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I again make this point? So far as the
1728
teaching profession is concerned, if there had been a hearing of the kind which the noble Lord mentioned, it would have been a disciplinary inquiry. As I have tried to make clear in my speech, it is a matter for the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether there is such an inquiry in this case.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I did not quite gather what the noble Lord was saying in his speech. Surely teachers in the approved school service should enjoy the same rights as those in the education service and, before they are dismissed, should have some possibility of justifying themselves.
But apart from the injustice to the head and deputy head, what about the rest of the staff? They have, in effect, been "sacked" at six months' notice. Although the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, correctly calls it redundancy, the effect is just the same. The noble Lord says that they have to get another job, but he has told the House that the Home Secretary cannot give them another job because he does not employ teachers in the approved school service. So these people are without jobs and without any assurance of jobs. And the whole school has been branded with a mark of shame. I think that the rest of the staff, who are in appalling uncertainty as to what their future is, deserve better consideration and some assurances as to what is going to happen to them. That is the first ground on which we have expressed our disquiet.
The second is the fact that we believe that the morale of the service is badly affected. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, and others of the skill and specialist knowledge that is required in this service. We are all well aware that the teachers who serve in the approved school service have a real calling to do so. As Lady Serota said, the boys and girls who find their way into these schools are often the rejects from other parts of the treatment service, from probation hostels, attendance centres, detention centres and special schools. They are the most difficult problem children, and the teachers have an extremely difficult job. What will their future be? How easy will it be to recruit them, if they begin to lose confidence in the system?

1729
And what assurance can they expect to get from their own unions, from the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of School Masters, to encourage them to go into the service, unless there is some security of tenure? What has happened may also affect—and I believe I am right in saying has affected—the relationship between teachers and boys in these schools. Obviously a teacher, to get the best effect, has to build up a feeling of confidence between himself and his pupils, and once the more unruly of them see their teachers being disciplined in the way that has happened at Court Lees, it tends to encourage them and to lessen confidence in those in authority.
As for the managers, my noble friend Lord Jellicoe has described the cavalier treatment that they received. I must say that I think that they have been hardly treated. They certainly believed in their school and in their staff, and they were reluctant to see the whole place closed. Although the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that they were unable and unwilling to conduct a re-created school, I believe that they did go a long way; and according to my information, even suggested that they would be prepared to suspend the use of corporal punishment for an agreed period if that would help the Home Secretary to allow them to carry on. But they have not been allowed to do so. I wonder again what effect this may well have on the morale of the other managers of approved schools throughout the country. As we know, 93 out of the 123 schools have voluntary managers.
The third and last reason why we are disturbed is that we see a serious deterioration in the relationship between the approved schools service and the Home Office. I have spoken to representatives of the associations concerned—of the Association of Heads of Approved Schools and of the National Association of Approved Schools Staffs—and they have all spoken most highly of the staff of the Home Office, and in particular of the close relationship that has always existed between the Home Office and the staffs of the schools. In this case, they are seriously disturbed. I think they are really worried that this close co-operation will be affected for the future. Surely
1730
the Home Secretary cannot view with equanimity a rupture of the close relationship that has existed hitherto, and surely he will pay some attention to their plea.
What we believe can be done is quite simple. We believe, first of all, that there should be a further hearing for Mr. Haydon and Mr. Draycon—a wider hearing, which can consider the whole merits of the service they have given in the approved school service, as well as the faults found in them by the Gibbens Inquiry. We certainly are not anxious to condone faults that have been found, but we do wish that these can be balanced against merits. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, we would ask for reconsideration. Secondly, we should like to see some guarantee given to the other members of the staff that they will be re-employed in the service. Thirdly, we should like to see the Home Secretary make some statement that will re-establish confidence in the service. He approves the approved schools. We should like to know that he approves of them. We should like a statement saying that they are doing a good job, something that will bolster the staff's feeling of confidence. Lastly, perhaps in conjunction with the asociations most closely concerned with the staff, some system might well be worked out for the future for a better security of tenure for staffs of approved schools, something similar, as I have suggested, to what obtains in the education service as regards tenure for staff.
The affair of Court Lees has drawn attention to wider organisational problems in the approved school system as a whole. Here the whole question is overshadowed by the Government's White Paper, and I would merely reinforce what my noble friend Lord Jellicoe said in his speech: how urgent it is that we should have a quick decision as to what is going to happen, and quick legislation to put it through. When the time comes for such a reorganisation, I hope that the Government will consult fully, so far as the staff in these schools are concerned, with the union representatives. It is clear that the approved school system as it exists to-day is in an unhappy state. It is overshadowed by the Government's reorganisation proposals and disturbed by the Home Secretary's action at Court Lees. What is required from the Government is an

1731
assurance of justice at Court Lees and an announcement of clear-cut plans for the future.
6.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, always seeks to be fair, and he has made a strenuous effort this evening. I think he is too gloomy, but that is a different thing from being unfair. If I may, I will try to alleviate a few of his anxieties at the end. We are all grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for initiating the debate. If there is a good place to debate this subject, which contains one gloomy feature in Court Lees but other more exciting possibilities in thinking of the future of the approved schools system, then the House of Lords is probably the best place to do it. The important issues raised by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in his vigorous and helpful speech, were answered to a great extent by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I will come back to one or two points which they made, but, if I may, I will try to deal with points raised subsequently, or points that, so to speak, bring the whole debate together.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, raised a particular case of one school which was causing him great disquiet, but I understand that he is going to put down a Question about it, and therefore I will not say more about that this evening. Since the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, spoke we have had speeches of the highest quality from the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, and from the noble Lords, Lord Annan and Lord Leatherland, all supporting the Government, and they will not expect me to do more than to thank them for those speeches. But there have been strong criticisms raised, even in this latter part of the debate, though not by many speakers.
I hope that the right reverend Prelate will forgive me if I say that I thought his speech was a monument of unfairness. I hope I say that with the same Christian spirit that he adopted towards Mr. Cook; perhaps it is neither more Christian nor less Christian than the spirit which he adopted to Mr. Cook. I assure the right reverend Prelate that I will call him by his proper title, but he began his speech
1732
by referring to "Mr. Cook" and then quickly lapsed into calling him "Cook". There is no doubt that the right reverend Prelate refused to give him his prefix.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: I have a script, and I think the noble Earl will find that in the script he was referred to in every case as "Mr. Cook".
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am afraid one must rely on one's ears rather than on the script. I am in the recollection of the House, and I think others will confirm that when the right reverend Prelate became carried away he departed from his script in that respect. I have no doubt whatever that he several times referred to him as "Cook". I say that because I feel that the right reverend Prelate was extraordinarily unfair to this gentleman. Mr. Cook has behaved in a very odd fashion, as was brought out in the Report; but he is not a delinquent. If I may say so, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, put the matter very well when he said: "We are not trying Mr. Cook." I venture to disagree slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, when he went on to say that we are trying the headmaster. I do not think the House of Lords is a very good court for that purpose. With all our great qualities, I do not think we are suited to try anybody in that sense. But I know what the noble Lord meant, because the condemnation in the document put before us this afternoon is a condemnation of Mr. Haydon and the deputy headmaster.
I hope that the right reverend Prelate will forgive me, and I will answer one particular point that he raised. I think he formed such a low opinion of Mr. Cook that he did not feel this criticism of the school by the Government was necessarily true. He asked whether any assurances had been given to Mr. Cook that, whatever he said, no disciplinary action would be taken against him. The answer is that he was told at one point by the Home Office that we would do our best to see that disciplinary action was not taken against him for coming forward, but that did not mean that he would be able to say anything he liked, true or false. I do not think this will be any surprise to the right reverend Prelate, but he asked the question, and I thought it right that I should answer it.

1733
Perhaps I should say one other thing about Mr. Cook—and this is probably not within the knowledge of everybody. The Approved Schools Managers Association were certainly critical of some aspects of the handling of this case, but they supported the Home Secretary in his decision that Mr. Cook should not be victimised. So this body, which is critical of the Government's general handling in one or two respects, did not take the view that Mr. Cook should have been got rid of. They realised that it would be an appalling result in a case of this kind if somebody actually raised a grave scandal, and in many respects proved correct, and the dog that died should be Mr. Cook. The Approved Schools Managers Association rejected that. I say that, in passing, to the right reverend Prelate.
I had intended to speak quite briefly, but the details pile up and I may not be quite so brief. Before I come on to the more optimistic aspect of our story, the future of the approved schools system, I must say one or two more words about Court Lees. I would venture to think that four issues have been before the House to-day. First of all—and here there has been no argument—the question arises whether the Home Secretary was right to set up the Inquiry. That has been accepted by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who very courteously told me just now that unfortunately he had to go. So we really need not spend time over that. But it was the first decision which the Home Secretary took.
Then there has been a great deal of discussion, explicit and, in a sense, implicit, as to whether we accept in essentials the Gibbens Report. I myself would feel that it would be most unwise that anybody who had not got far more grounds than have been disclosed in this House should set himself up as superior to this Report. Here is a Q.C. who, after taking great trouble, found this gentleman guilty of certain forms of malpractice. I should have thought that this Report would make a fair-minded impression on anybody. I am sure that the Q.C. was fully alive to the weaknesses of Mr. Cook, and he says so. It is not in the least likely that he was carried away by the evidence of Mr. Cook, and
1734
I think we must accept this Report as the only serious contribution before us. Nobody has come forward with rival documents, although I have been sent some that are full of inaccuracies. I should have thought that this House would take its stand on the Report being substantially correct.
Once we accept that as correct, we are passing a criticism on Mr. Haydon and his deputy. That inevitably follows. We cannot accept the Gibbens Report and say that, after all, perhaps Mr. Haydon and his deputy were not so wrong. We accept the fact that they were decent fellows, but we cannot say they were not guilty of grave misconduct. If we accept the Report, then I should have thought the next step that arises is what steps the Home Secretary should have taken to deal with the headmaster and his deputy, in particular.
There has been a good deal of discussion among critics as to whether the headmaster was treated fairly. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, brought out very clearly that the headmaster was represented throughout the proceedings. I think Lord Leatherland thought at one point that he was not represented at all. Mr. Haydon withdrew while the boys gave evidence—for boys to give evidence about being beaten by the headmaster in front of him would be somewhat fantastic—but he was legally represented throughout the proceedings. Even at the end of this debate a confusion as to what has happened to Mr. Haydon remains—and, with great respect, it was repeated in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. My Lords, I do not say this sarcastically, for it is easy enough to get the facts if one is given plenty of Government brief, but when you are on the other side of the House it is easy enough not always to have the correct facts.
It is wrong to say that Mr. Haydon has been dismissed. He has not been dismissed. He is in the same position, at the moment, as the other masters in the school: they are on full pay for six months, and I understand that he is still in his house. It would be wrong to talk as if he had been dismissed. The question of dismissing him was raised with the managers; it was an important point in their discussions. But when the managers showed themselves, in the view of

1735
the Home Secretary, to be totally unaware of the gravity of the issues involved, he came to the conclusion that he had to go further than simply deal with the one headmaster; he had to bring the school, as at present constituted, to an end.
After that, there was no question of further penalties being inflicted on this headmaster as against the rest of the staff. All the others are on six months' leave, at least the headmaster and his deputy are, and I imagine most are, unless any of them have obtained other work in the meanwhile. One should not talk of him as being dismissed—he has not been dismissed. That is important if we are referring to the grave injustice and persecution of the headmaster which almost seems to have been implied. If he had been dismissed (and this is what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, had in mind at one point) other procedures would have operated—there would have been an appeal. But as he was not dismissed, there was no appeal in his case, any more than there was in the case of the other masters. They have all been given notice that their contracts are terminated.
I am not in a position to answer the point very fully with regard to what his future may be. It would be very unwise for me to say exactly what kind of future I would surmise for the headmaster. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, brought out in an intervention, all the Home Secretary can do is refuse to accept the nomination of a particular gentleman as headmaster of a school; he cannot otherwise decide that he is or is not appointed to some other position. The Secretary of State for Education has to be generally satisfied, as I understand it, with the educational quality of a particular gentleman and, therefore, it could be that the Secretary of State for Education would come into it, and the managers, who would make the appointment in another case, would also have to reach their own decision. All the facts in this case would no doubt be laid before them. All one can say—and I have no official authority for this but it seems obvious—is that the less public inquiry there is into Mr. Haydon's activities, and the less this case is stirred up, the better his prospects for the future. That is a matter for common sense.
1736
The one thing that would not have helped Mr. Haydon would have been if he had been prosecuted. If he was any friend or relative of mine I should certainly not want more inquiries and publicity. I would hope that he would obtain a future in another approved school or some other part of the educational system, and I think that the least fuss, battle and sensation that attaches to it, the better for him. That is not a statement pledging the Government to anything.—I am giving my own candid opinion.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, if I may interrupt, may I say that I am a little surprised to hear the noble Earl saying this, in view of the fact that so far as I know all the associations in this matter are pressing as vigorously as possible for a further inquiry. I should have thought they would be at least as good judges as to what is in Mr. Haydon's interests as the noble Earl. He has argued that Mr. Haydon has not been dismissed, and I am sorry to use this argument, because it seems to me something of a legal quibble. Is not the position that as from February 6 he will, as a result of the Home Secretry's decision, lose both his job and his home? Is not that equivalent to dismissal?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I should not have thought that it was equivalent at all. A good many people do not get six months' notice on being dismissed from their jobs. The stigma of being dismissed from a job will not attach to him in this case. I do not accept that the two things are equivalent.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, my noble friend says that he has not been dismissed. I understand that the Home Secretary will no longer give him approval as a headmaster in another approved school.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I know that my articulation is very bad, but I said that just now.
LORD RAGLAN: Is that not equivalent to dismissal?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, no. He is coming to an end in one position, just as I might come to an end as Leader of the House and never be reappointed to the position. But I would

1737
not be dismissed from the job, necessarily. There are many nice distinctions here. This is a perfectly clear distinction between being dismissed, which is an ignominious fate, and this is not something attaching to this gentleman. Have I made that clear?
Then comes the question of the managers. This is undoubtedly a matter where in the last resort one has to attach a great deal of weight to the opinion of the Home Secretary, because all the facts cannot be fully discussed in public. If you decide that certain gentlemen are not worthy of confidence in a particular role which they have been performing in the past, you do not want to spell all that out in great detail.
I am not accusing the managers of conduct which can be censured in the same way as the conduct of the unfortunate Mr. Haydon and his deputy, but the Home Secretary had not started with this idea as a firm one in his mind, although, of course, it was always a possibility when he saw the Report. After discussions with the managers, he came to the conclusion it was impossible for these gentlemen to continue in the positions they had occupied hitherto because they had failed totally to understand the gravity of the issues and the enormity of the offences committed by Mr. Haydon and his deputy. Those are the reasons that governed the Home Secretary. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has made the point more than once, which was not fully heard by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that it was not just the fact that the managers would not take back Mr. Cook. That was just one element in a general decision.
Tributes have been sincerely paid by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Lord, Lord Annan, among others, to the quality of our present Home Secretary, so we must allow some weight, surely, to attach to his judgment. We were not there; none of us was there. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was there, but possibly not. At any rate, the Home Secretary saw these managers, discussed these issues with them and, taking everything into account, including the background of the school, and any problems that had arisen in the past, he came to the conclusion that these gentlemen could not be allowed to continue as managers in the future.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I intervene again? I apologise for doing so, but there is a point here which puzzles me, and perhaps the noble Earl the Leader of the House can elucidate it. I have been following very closely what he said, but it does not explain to me why it was that Judge Cohen was informed on August 1, when he saw the Permanent Under-Secretary, I believe, at the Home Office, that it was the Home Secretary's intention to close the school. That was five days before the interview took place between the Home Secretary, Judge Cohen and the managers, when presumably the Home Secretary, according to what the noble Earl says, formed this impression. Five days before, the Home Secretary, through the Permanent Under-Secretary, was announcing his intention that the school should be closed.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, when I look at Hansard to-mor-row I shall see whether I put the matter correctly. The Home Secretary, I understand, made it clear that, while that was in his mind—and I think that a few minutes ago I referred to it as a possibility in his mind—he had not reached a firm decision. It was a possibility before the discussion; it became a firm decision after he had been engaged in these discussions. That is what I understand, and my noble friend Lord Stonham confirms it. I know that the noble Earl has regard for the Home Secretary, as the Home Secretary has for him; and one can only in the last resort say that I have very great confidence also in the Home Secretary, and I have no doubt whatever in accepting his judgment on this very difficult point.
Now may I come to the future of approved schools? I will not keep the House for very long. Certainly the future cannot be described as dark. There are many problems, but I do not think we should allow ourselves to pass on any state of gloom. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, did not generate any gloom; it was left to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, to introduce that element. But as Lord Jellicoe knows, progress has been made. If I refer to the progress made since 1964, it does not mean that there was no progress before. There was plenty of progress in the years before, under the noble Earl and under the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. But

1739
since October, 1964, 798 additional places have been provided in approved schools, though I gather that this is partly offset by the closure of some schools and a reduction in places at others. Five new schools have been opened. Further progress has been made in modernising existing schools, and the 25 boys' schools now have separate house units, with about 30 boys in each. The girls have the group system, but there the groups are smaller—usually they are of eight or ten girls.
There have been many other reforms, some of them started in the time of Lord Brooke of Cumnor and the noble Earl. Staff ratios have been improved, and better facilities for training have been introduced. All these have been developed. Do not let us talk of this service as if it were a declining service. But I accept from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that the Service at the moment are somewhat bewildered as to the direction of Government policy. The noble Lord Lord Stonham, I hope, will have cleared their minds about that. I know that he gave us so much information that possibly noble Lords did not take it all in, or grasp it all fully. But I should hope that, after tonight, they will realise that the thinking is pursuing a most constructive course.
But let us be frank. We have been waiting—and I think it would have been inevitable that any Government should do this, as the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, and others have brought out—for various inquiries to be completed. It would be very difficult to reform the approved schools without reforming the services provided for children and young people more widely. We must hope, therefore, for further reform. When I say "hope", I am well aware that before very long, though I should not like to say in the absolutely immediate future, there will be fundamental legislation which will give effect to the ideals expressed by Lord Stonham.
In a moment or two I will end. I hope that noble Lords, and those who read this debate, will not feel that in a sense Court Lees has been the most important matter we have been discussing. I would feel that this new vision of a therapeutic society in approved schools, which Lord Stonham unfolded in a very
1740
careful speech, may suggest to the noble Earl that this debate will have served a purpose even more useful than clarifying the position of Court Lees. It has enabled Lord Stonham to set out fully, and I would say inspiringly, the Government's ideas for approved schools.
I would stress one point in case there is misunderstanding. Certainly this therapeutic community which Lord Stonham has mentioned does not mean an entirely permissive attitude, an attitude which encourages sloppy behaviour towards other people. He balanced his picture. There was to be therapy, but also help and friendship and control. I hope that all he has said on those matters will be carefully studied, because I am sure the future lies in that direction.
On the administrative side, of course we are all agreed in these latter days that the approved schools should be fitted into a wider setting. But I myself feel that even more important than the administrative adjustments is this new concept of helping these disturbed young people to form human relationships and to learn to behave properly towards their fellows. I believe that if Court Lees has helped to shake us up, to force us to come out a little sooner and say exactly where we stand, it will have served a useful purpose. Certainly this debate has been most valuable, but I hope noble Lords will agree that, whatever could have been done regarding Court Lees—and I am firmly behind the Home Secretary—in this House and in all the informed circles in this country we must all work towards a new kind of approved school from which the punitive approach has been abandoned, has been removed; and I believe that we are groping our way towards it, and that we shall achieve it before many years are past.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps he will clear up one important point which I think ought to be dealt with. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, told us that there was deadlock between Surrey County Council, who agreed to take over the school, and the managers and the trustees. Two of the managers were trustees, and they were prepared to hand over to the Surrey County Council the title deeds of the school. We were also told

1741
that £200,000 of public money had been spent on this school. It seems to me that there is a great scarcity of approved schools, and if this school is to remain permanently closed, and this battle goes on, I think this is very unsatisfactory and that a further inquiry ought to take place.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, this question is important, and I am glad that it has been raised; it struck me when I was looking at this matter in preparation for my speech. If £200,000 has been spent by the Government, can managers or trustees just snap their fingers at the Government and say they want to turn it into a hotel? The answer is that the property rests in trustees, but where Government money has been spent it must be repaid, so I have no doubt that eventually this school will become an approved school again.
6.49 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am not going to keep your Lordships for more than a moment, but I should like to say that I am sincerely grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion, whichever way their sentiments have gone. But I do not think it would be right for me, before I withdraw my Motion, not to express my continuing disquiet over the Court Lees issue. I am not happy, and it would be wrong for me to pretend that I am happy, at the replies I have received.
I am not yet convinced that the managers have had a fair deal, but I am prepared to agree that they are probably well able to look after themselves. I am not yet convinced that the school even—and this is perhaps an even more important issue—has had a fair deal. If it is true that the managers and the headmaster were running a good and constructive school, in which, however, there had been grave breaches of the Approved School Rules, then I believe that the Home Secretary's decision in this matter is open to serious question. If, in fact, the school was not regarded by him as being in general satisfactory, he was obviously justified in his action. But having listened to this debate I cannot say that either this debate or the Report has really cleared up that aspect of the matter.
1742
Thirdly, I am still deeply concerned about the future of the headmaster and the deputy headmaster, and indeed of the minority of the other masters, because in his reply the noble Lord referred to a hope that most of the masters would receive jobs when Court Lees opened again.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I make it clear that what I had in mind was that some of the teachers may not wish to return. So far as I am aware, all of those who are specified will have jobs open to them.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am glad that in these concluding moments I have been able to extract that from the noble Lord, but I am deeply unhappy about the position of the headmaster and the deputy. I, for one, was deeply impressed by the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, who knows the school more intimately than any other Member of your Lordships' House, and I was unhappy at hearing that speech stigmatised by the noble Leader of the House as being "unfair". However I am happy about one aspect of this debate and that is that we have had the veil at least a little lifted by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Earl the Leader of the House as to the Government's future intentions, and I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord said about their intentions. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, I only hope that these intentions can be put into effect with the least possible delay. If this debate has done anything to push the Government along that course, then at least in that respect it will have been justified. With those few words I beg leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SEA FISH (CONSERVATION) BILL [H.L.] SEA FISHERIES (SHELLFISH) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
COUNTRYSIDE (SCOTLAND) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
LEASEHOLD REFORM BILL
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Amendments agreed to; one other Amendment agreed to with an Amendment; and with the remaining Amendments disagreed to, with Reasons for such disagreement: the said Reasons to be printed, and to be considered tomorrow.

MOTORWAYS AND TOLLS
6.52 p.m.
LORD ST. JUST LORD ST. JUST rose to ask Her Majesty's Government: Whether they will introduce legislation to enable tolls to be charged for the use of motorways in order to provide the finance necessary to complete a national network of motorways. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the objection to tolls has, I think, been breached in putting tolls on bridges and tunnels, the principle being that if you want to travel fast, whether under or over the water, you must pay for it.
Perhaps I may, for a few minutes, whirl your Lordships away from these shores to consider the situation in Germany and Italy, both of which countries are building, or have built, a national network of autobahns or autostradas. Germany, we know has probably got the most efficient autobahn service in the world, but as we know it was built by "slave labour"—in other words, in the days of the Hitler youth. Italy, on the other hand, is still in the process of building a national network of autostradas, and of course they do place tolls on them. France is the other country about which I should like to speak for a moment. France has a great many small auto-routes which do not have tolls on, and then suddenly one comes across an auto-route that has. But I think the principle of tolls is coming in France as they build more and more roads.
Returning to this country, from the information I have been able to collect it seems that in this country we have so far completed some 527 miles of motorways. Projected motorways, including those under construction, total about 1,300 miles. I turn next to the cost of building a motorway. This varies from about £500,000 to over £1 million a mile, dependent on the terrain. These figures, of course, include the cost of tunnels and
1744
major bridges. But it is "some figure", and it gives an idea of the vast sum of money that is needed to complete a national network. On the plans of future motorways, there does not seem to be, from the plans I have been able to see, a motorway scheduled from Kent, through Sussex and Hampshire and down to Dorset. It has always appeared to me that there was a great necessity for an East—West motorway communication system South of London.
There is one other important point connected with this. As more and more cars come on to the roads it seems to me that a ring motorway will become necessary. I dislike referring to other countries all the time, because comparisons are not always good, but in this regard I think Berlin is a good example, because it has a ring motorway built 20 miles outside the centre of the City, to link together all the motorways, North, South, East and West; and I think that in the end this country will have to adopt that system. Let me turn to a few more figures which have been compiled for me by the A.A. In 1965 there were some 570,000 more cars on the road than in 1964; in 1966 there were 346,000 more than in 1965, and the A.A. now state that there are at the present time some 14 million vehicles on the roads of this country. This gives us some idea of what we are going to have to face in the future.
Turning to the tolls themselves, I should have thought it quite unnecessary to toll motorways already completed. In fact I think this really covers only the M.1, because this is virtually as near completion as any of them. For myself, I believe that the form of toll and operation which is the easiest to install and the quickest for cars to use is the French system. I saw this working not long ago. Under this system you go into a gate, you throw a certain sum of money into a basket, whereupon the lights change from red to green and away you go.
I remember that some time ago, when I asked a Starred Question in your Lordships' House about tolls on motorways it was said that one of the difficulties is the manning of entrances day and night, and that it would involve the employment of an enormous number of people. Personally, I feel that this would be unnecessary. I do not think one wants to go

1745
into too many details, but I should have thought that every 50 miles one would have a toll point, and if people wished to proceed further for another 50 miles they would pay the further toll. It is just bad luck if you happen to leave the motorway at the first branch off, say after 10 miles. I think the system could be kept quite simple. We have another great advantage in this country. We have a first-class system of "A" roads, major roads and minor roads, and if we can get a national network of motorways completed we shall have a system of roads comparable to those anywhere in the world.
In conclusion, I should like to thank all noble Lords who are to take part in this debate, and also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who is to reply for the Government. I am not very hopeful of the reply I shall receive to my Question, due mainly to a statement which appeared in the Press just before the Summer Recess, when it was announced that the Government were considering putting tolls on motorways. There was a meeting of the Cabinet that night, and this statement was denied the next day. So I have a feeling that this was probably a Cabinet decision. Nevertheless, I feel that this Question is worth asking.
7.2 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, a lot of talk is taking place among the various interested sides of road development with regard to the introduction of tolls, as to whether tolls may not increase the road mileage that is so necessary to meet modern day traffic. This is a debatable point. Our present roads programme, particularly for motorways, was devised first in 1958ߝ59, when some 8½ miles of motorway were built. The programme then aimed at providing 1,250 miles of motorways by the early 1970s. I feel that probably, seeing that only some 523 miles have been built, this is one of the things which bring about this cry, "Cannot we introduce tolls in order to get more roads built, and motorways in particular?". If we look back at this programme and see an expansion of only some 53 miles a year, taking the average over this period of time, we see that it will be very late indeed in the 1970s before the 1,250 miles first envisaged some nine years ago will be built.
1746
This, of course, throws the programme entirely "haywire".
We know that the county surveyors, in a close examination of the problem of traffic, visualise that by the 1980s there should be at least another 1,700 miles of motorways or improvement to "A" roads. That makes a mileage of 2,700. At the present rate of progress it is not possible to see anything like this achievement taking place. Unless there is considerable speeding up, it will be near the end of the century before we begin to meet the needs of the motor car in this modern age, with its continuous growth.
A look at the graph of motorway construction during these years indicates a rather deplorable sight. We find that no Government up to now has given transport needs a sufficient priority in its scheme of things. We see the road programme from 1959 onwards. In 1960, some 85 miles of new roads were built, dropping down in 1962 to 20 miles; we see a spurt taking place in 1964 to 88 miles; we see it dropping in 1966 to 30 miles. But we are pleased to see that in 1967, up to the present day, some 70 miles are being built, and in this fiscal year, which goes to April next year, we already see some 63 miles being completed. This indicates that a real step forward is taking place. I would urge the Government to ensure that, no matter what the vicissitudes may be—the motor car is here to stay; we have to live with it—there shall not be any further restriction in the road-building programme.
The Government must realise the importance of this, and I am sure from what they are now doing that they do realise it. However, with the usual caution of the Treasury, they have refused to give firm promises for a continually rising road construction programme, saying that this development will depend upon the level of public expenditure. It is natural; one can appreciate that point of view. But again I feel that the Government and the present Minister of Transport—and I am sure she will, knowing the tenacity of this particular lady—will insist on a much higher priority being given to these transport requirements. I share her view that one of the reasons for such heavy congestion on our roads is that there is so much heavy goods traffic; and I share her view that as much as possible of this heavy goods traffic

1747
should be diverted to rail, instead of cluttering up our roads in the way it does to-day, particularly when it gets into our cities and towns.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord St. Just, who suggested that we should institute road tolls, or with anything like the pricing system suggested even by Mr. Snead's Report. I do not like this idea that the person who is going to use the road should be the person who can adequately pay for the tolls or the parking of his car. I think this is a social obligation in accordance with the needs of our day and generation, although I have some sympathy with Lord St. Just and others who might propose these tolls with the desire to get some improvement in the present road construction programme. I am told that the current revenue from motor taxation is approximately £1,200 million a year, out of which only some £360 million is ploughed back into our roads. I am the last person in the world to suggest that any given tax should be devoted to a given project—I think that is an entirely wrong system. But, on the other hand, with such heavy taxation I think the motorist is entitled to more. The receipts from motor taxation equal three and a half times the expenditure on our road services to-day. Without agreeing with many of the motoring associations who say that the motor-car taxation should be utilised for road development, I think that much greater expenditure on roads must receive higher priority than it has been doing recently.
The noble Lord, Lord St. Just, mentioned that the objection to tolls is being breached. Yes—very much to my regret. One knows that the Forth Bridge, the Severn Bridge, the Tyne Tunnel, and others, have been made possible only because the people concerned in the area agreed with tolls. I took some part in the Tyne Tunnel project for many years, and I know the hostility that was there in the whole area to the additional cost that is imposed on moving traffic through the Tyne Tunnel. This was objected to, but ultimately they had to agree to the previous Government's insistence that there should be a toll. In my opinion to introduce tolls would take us back many decades. We ended tolls in this system once, and the suggestion that we should
1748
go back to tolls reminds me of Gilpin's ride of so many decades ago. I do not think we ought to go back at all to that system.
On the other hand, I feel that we ought to speed up the road programme in order to meet present-day congestion. As I have indicated, I am certain that the present Minister of Transport is well aware of this, by virtue of the programme that she is now pressing through. I sincerely hope that she may be able to influence her colleagues in the Cabinet to seek, if necessary, amending legislation to do away with the famous 31 steps involved in any road project. These 31 steps are pretty well known. They concern the length of time involved. I am certain that the safeguards can be maintained even with a considerable curtailment of the 31 steps in the procedure before one road is planned and before the first sod can be turned towards its development. This is a factor that increases considerably the length of time taken before a road programme can be put into operation. I make no apology for mentioning this matter: it is a pet subject of mine and one that I have mentioned on several occasions.
There are many things that can be said, but in view of this late hour and the lateness of the sitting last night, I have been requested to be rather brief. However, I should like to make a passing reference towards easing our road congestion. I think that more and more attention must be paid to providing adequate multi-storey car parks, or parking on the periphery of our towns and cities. We build these wonderful motorways, but when the traffic arrives at its destination we see continuous congestion.
Every one of us has had considerable experience of this. A little while go I was in a city that I do not know well, and, instead of parking on the periphery—as I ought to have done, and as I shall do now that I know the town better—I found myself going round the city for nearly an hour before I could find a parking place. This simply adds to the congestion. Urgent priority is needed for establishing these parking places. I also think that in developing our road programme we should look ahead, as the noble Lord, Lord St. Just rightly pointed out, and in building many of these motorways we should provide access roads for the traffic

1749
to get to the docks or to other industrial areas. Some time ago I took part in a trip organised by the Roads Campaign Council, and I followed traffic loaded at Birmingham coming down to London docks, and I followed traffic loaded at Düsseldorf and going to the ports of Europe. I found that the traffic from Düsseldorf to Rotterdam carried 20 per cent. more in mileage in 20 per cent. less time. That is a feature which exists there. It is something we must take note of.
I think that this question of tolls embraces the whole of the road programme, and I certainly hope that my noble friend, when he replies, will say quite frankly that we are prepared to concentrate on increasing and developing the road programme, but that we shall not entertain the idea of imposing any tolls.
7.14 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I start by congratulating my noble friend on introducing this interesting topic to us this evening and for doing it in such a lucid and interesting way. The idea of tolls for motorways is an interesting one; it has been discussed a great deal in this country. I personally have never been against it in principle and, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, I have felt that tolls for special purposes were probably rightly charged. But whether we may agree or disagree on the principle of tolls, I am with the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, and with my noble friend, about the urgent need for increased funds for building motorways. It is that point that really starts this debate and gives point to it. Inter-city motorways are one of the few 100 per cent. necessities upon which everyone can agree. The solutions in towns are far more complex, but on this we can all agree; that inter-city motorways provide fast, safe travel, both for freight and private cars, between towns and especially to the ports.
The fact is that at the present time Great Britain is in the unenviable position of being absolutely bottom of the league among the advanced countries for the building of motorways. I have here a table which indicates how we stand in relation to the United States, which is at the top of the league, with 216 miles of
1750
motorways per million of population. Great Britain stands at the bottom with 22, one-tenth only; and countries like Italy and Germany, which the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, has mentioned, are up in the sixties and seventies. The fact is that we naturally cannot expect to match the United States in road building; we have not their resources, nor have we their space. But we can expect to match the other European countries, and we are, year by year, falling further behind in the equipment of our country with this modern method of moving road vehicles rapidly and safely. After all, if it is good value in these countries in Europe with no more resources than we have, and in some cases less, to build more road motorways, it is surely good value for Great Britain to do so as well.
To illustrate my point I should like to make one statistical reference—to Professor Morgan's figure that two years ago road congestion was costing over £1,000 million per annum in this country and was increasing at the rate of 14 per cent. per annum. The fact is that our existing trunk road system is a 19th century system with its single carriage ways, and whenever any of us go to America we must be struck by the fearful inadequacy of our trunk road system. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord St. Just that our secondary road system is excellent, second to none; but our trunk road system really is a 19th century system trying to cope with a 20th century job.
The scale of our motorway programme has already been referred to as the one mounted originally by a Conservative Government about eight or nine years ago, of about 1,200 miles. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, that it is going very slowly, and although we are told that it is going to be finished by some date in the early 1970's, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be able to tell us what date, and I hope that it will be rather earlier than I suspect it will be. But what we should really like to hear is what plans the Government have for the next phase. I refer also, with approval, to the county surveyors' programme of 1,700 miles which should be added to the existing 1,200 miles which is in the pipeline. This would really give us a basic network of motorways in this country. That is what

1751
the Government should now be preparing for and speeding up the programme in order to begin to work upon it. Even when this is completed, we shall still have under 3,000 miles of motorways in this country, less than the Germans and the Italians are aiming for in their present current programmes.
Let me turn to the question of finance for the programme. In a word, I would say that a road pricing system, which is what motorway tolls would involve, would be acceptable, in my judgment, only if it replaced an equivalent part of the existing taxation lying on the backs of road users. If it did, I myself would be prepared to accept it. The International Road Federation in their last Report told us that road users in this country are easily the highest taxed in Europe and we have the lowest motorway programme. This Government have the distinction of increasing total taxation on road users from £777 million in 1964 to a figure of £1,155 million in 1967, £45 million less than the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, said, but still a most formidable sum. This is an increase of £378 million—nearly 50 per cent. increase in the three years noble Lords opposite have been governing the country. At the same time last year, in 1966, there was actually a decrease in the total spending—I agree that it was a decrease of only £2 million; nevertheless there was a decrease in the total expenditure on roads from 1965 to 1966. In the face of such enormous extra taxation, only about a third or a half of which is spent on roads, road users cannot, in my judgment, be asked to pay further for the privilege of taking their vehicles on the road, whether it is a motorway or any other road.
I should like to make a small technical point to my noble friend Lord St. Just. Despite his interesting reference to the French system, I do not myself think that in a densely developed country like ours, where exits and entrances are needed more often than every 50 miles, it would be convenient to have all the exits and entrances controlled. This struck me particularly in Los Angeles where they have a most elaborate system of freeways. If they were all controlled it would wreck the whole movement of traffic, and this would be a serious technical point
1752
to overcome if tolls were going to be charged. As a method of new finance to accelerate the building of motorways I feel that tolls are an interesting and possible idea, but are only acceptable if they replace part of the present excessive taxation. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in his reply will have some better news for us about the rate of the Government's plans for increasing the motorway building and allocating for the purpose a larger share of the taxation which road users now pay.
7.25 p.m.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord's request for the Government to consider road tolls. When the noble Lord comes to reply, could we be told whether the Government target still stays somewhere about 1,300 miles by the early 1970s, and, if that is so, will the provision of these extra miles close the existing missing links, of which there are quite a few, on the M.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 et cetera? It seems to me that if this is done by 1970, there will be a very large motorway organisation.
Many years ago local authorities were charged with maintaining the section of the King's highway which went through their territory. This system has gone on and on, and it is right to say that to-day more than a thousand authorities, from the Ministry to urban district councils, are concerned with roads. It is probably right that the local roads and the unclassified roads should remain within this sphere of control, but I wonder whether it would be practical politics, once we get this great 1,300 miles, to allow this organisation to remain among this conglomeration of authorities with all their individual likes, views, interests and everything else.
Would it not be more sensible to consider placing it in a national corporation on a commercial basis, a corporation which would be concerned in time to make itself viable, which possibly would meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, about relieving the Exchequer and in turn the taxpayer on the cost of these roads? National organisations sell to whoever wants to buy their product. The gas authority sell their gas, the electricity authority sell their electricity, railways sell their railway

1753
tickets, air corporations sell their air tickets, and those who want them buy them. What would an authority owning this road network sell? Apart from its ancillary services of restaurants and petrol stations, it would be selling road space. How would it do this? Probably the best way would be by tolls, and it would probably be done on a basis of distance involving sections of road.
The noble Lord has mentioned that there might be automatic light controls every 50 miles or so. In Italy they have sections which are much shorter than that and there is no difficulty in the way of congestion. If one takes a busy road such as that which runs between Florence and Viareggio, which is jammed all the time, there is no hold-up because one gets on or off at intersections, without requiring special people to control them. One gets off the motor road in that way. I suggest that if this is done, such a large organisation will be involved in the through motorways that they would best be put into a commercial corporation and be run as other commercial Government corporations, and the tolls could pay for them. It would have the great advantage that those people who wanted to use the roads for commercial or other reasons would pay for what they got. In other words you would "pay your money and take your choice", and the choice would not be obligatory, which is a very important consideration.
7.28 p.m.
LORD STRATHCARRON: My Lords, in rising to support my noble friend Lord St. Just, I am aware that opinions are very divided on this subject. The motorist, who is already overburdened by taxation of every sort, might be forgiven for expecting to be given motorways without tolls on them. However, the building of motorways has been so pathetically slow that it is not keeping pace with the increase in traffic each year, and without tolls, and therefore the speeding up of the programme, I see no hope of our ever getting any adequate roads. The charge for using a motorway is likely to be in the region of 1½d. a mile. Against this one has to set the saving in wear and tear of the motor vehicle and also the time element. The great attraction of the toll road is that if you object you do not have to go on it, whereas you have to pay your
1754
£17 10s. 0d. for your road licence and 3s. 7d. a gallon for petrol. You can go on the old roads if you do not wish to use the new. The purpose of collecting a toll is, of course, so that the road programme should be expanded. We want to be careful that the same thing does not happen as has happened with parking meters. Motorists, who contributed hundreds of thousands of pounds, were told that they were going to get off-street parking spaces, and they have got absolutely nothing. All they have had are a lot of yellow tickets. We should need safeguards to see that the money is protected.
Good roads are the greatest possible aid to safety, and statistics show that motorways have far fewer fatalities than the roads which they replace. It is sometimes difficult to understand this, because a motorway death is a headline news item, whereas if you fall out of your bath and break your neck it is probably not mentioned at all. Far too much prominence is given to any accident on a motorway, which is quite wrong. Motorways obviously increase the business efficiency of the country, and it may be necessary to pay out in order to get the benefits of that increased efficiency. It has always seemed strange to me that far smaller and poorer countries than ours have a very fine system of motor roads, while we are always told that we are unable to afford it. If this is really so, then I think we shall inevitably have to have toll roads, though I still believe that we ought to be given them for nothing. I should like to support my noble friend.
7.31 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. Just, for raising this very interesting question, although, if I may say so with respect, I do not think the solution which the noble Lord has put forward in his Unstarred Question is necessarily the right one. But I agree it is one that should be examined closely and ventilated, and I was very interested in everything that he had to say.
The noble Lord mentioned France—a country which I think he probably knows very well and for which he has a great affection, as indeed I have myself. I have

1755
never been on a toll road in France, but I was once charged a very large sum for crossing that beautiful suspension bridge at Tancarville, although I think the ferries over the Seine are free. But I submit that the conditions in France are quite different, because the density of the population is much lower, the country is much larger, and there is not nearly the number of vehicles on the roads which we find in this country. Indeed, it is one of the joys of spending foreign holidays there. One must say, in passing, how disappointed one is (although this is not the subject of the debate) that the travel allowance has not been increased.
The noble Lord, Lord St. Just, did not mention the United States. Outside the great cities the density of traffic there is more comparable to that in this counttry. I remember that two years ago I was staying in New York, but spent a Sunday in Connecticut. We drove back on Sunday evening at the time of the holiday traffic when most people were returning to New York, and we were delayed very considerably—I think for half an hour or even longer—at one of the tolls. I think the trouble is that the traffic will bank up on these motorways whatever one has. One tries to have a standard coin, and one tries to have a man ready to take it with as little delay as possible; but there is still a slowing up which can mean that the traffic will bank up. One can envisage hundreds and hundreds of cars stretching for miles and miles trying to get through, as happened on that Sunday night outside New York. For that reason I submit that the noble Lord's suggestion is not really a solution.
On the other hand, I agree with everything that previous speakers in this debate have said about the importance of increasing and completing this great motorway project. It is a matter of great disappointment that, perhaps due to economic necessity and the freeze, this has been slowed down. It is very depressing after motoring in Europe, particularly in France—if I may mention that wonderful country again—and finding the great projects that are going on everywhere, the magnificent roads that are being built, to come here and find the stagnation. After all, roads and motorways are not a
1756
luxury which we can do without. They are part of the whole economy. And we cannot get the economy of this country going; we cannot get this country modernised; we cannot get this country really brought up to the standard of the mid-1960s, unless we see that the people of this country are able to travel easily and quickly, and with as little delay as possible, along Her Majesty's highways.
7.35 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, having listened to the very interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord St. Just, and the almost equally interesting speeches of all the other noble Lords who have taken part, I am afraid I must make it clear right from the outset that my right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of Transport have no plans for introducing tolls on motorways. But I am glad to say that they have every intention of completing at least the first 1,000 miles—and I would point out that the only commitment which has ever been given is 1,000 miles of motorways—without them by the early 1970s (I will not be more precise than that, to the regret of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford) and this will constitute the main national motorway network. As has been said, there are some 500 miles of motorway now being used by traffic in England, Scotland and Wales; there are a further 150 miles under construction, and planning of the remaining lengths is at various stages of advancement.
I may say in passing, having recently taken over responsibility for roadworks in Scotland, that one of the things which appals me is the time it takes from the first idea until there is even a start on making the roads—the 31 steps. We have our equivalent in Scotland. Having regard to the fact that this Government entered into office some three years ago, if progress up to this point is not as fast as it ought to have been, it cannot up to the present be laid at the door of Her Majesty's Government. But I do not say that in criticism, because references to what is being done by other countries must take into consideration what other countries are doing in other directions. This is only part of what has to be done out of our national resources. However,

1757
I shall come back to that. We are completely confident that the network commitment will be completed on time.
To come to the question of imposing tolls on motorways, of course this is not a new proposal and it recurs from time to time. Tolling motorways is the practice in a few foreign countries, though not in most of them; and one naturally asks, as noble Lords have done, whether there might not be some advantage for us in adopting the same practice. Successive Governments have therefore reviewed this idea from time to time, and the present Government are also keeping the possibility under review, in case at some future time the balance of advantage should shift from what it appears to be at present. But up to the present the answer has always been that the imposition of tolls on motorways, for whatever purpose, would not be the right policy, for a number of reasons which I will do my best to explain.
I should say, first of all, that I take it we are discussing the tolling of whole lengths of motorway; not the imposition of a single toll at one or more strategic points, such as the Severn Bridge. It is of course accepted policy, or nearly accepted policy, that estuarial crossings of this kind, which are very expensive to provide and which save the driver a quite exceptional amount of time and distance, should be tolled. In these circumstances, the toll can be collected at comparatively little cost, either in the direct expenses of administration or in the uneconomic diversion of traffic.
A toll imposed over a whole length of motorway, however, is a very different proposition. Toll plazas would have to be built at every entrance and at every exit, and they would have to be laid out on a generous scale in order to minimise delays and queues of traffic which could possibly be dangerous as well as frustrating. I think there was a misunderstanding of what the noble Lord, Lord St. Just, said when he spoke about having a toll every 50 miles. If I understood him rightly, he was suggesting that you went through and paid for 50 miles whether you were going 50 miles or not, and that if you left before that point then your motoring was correspondingly more expensive, whereas if you proceeded beyond that point you were "clobbered" once again. I do not know how that
1758
would commend itself to the motorist, who certainly shares the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that he is heavily taxed.
But at least some of the toll booths—and I think Lord St. Just conceded this—would have to be manned 24 hours a day. The thought occurs to me that a certain amount of vandalism goes on from time to time, and that these coin-operated toll booths, unmanned for considerable periods, might very speedily attract the attention of those who would regard them as a fairly easy way of getting money, rather than working for it. So even an unmanned toll booth would probably have to be guarded in some way so that the money went in the right direction. I do not think we could consider any toll booth which could be unmanned in the full sense of the term.
The layout of the motorways or, in particular, the complicated system of slip-roads which are necessary to enable entrance and exit to be made safely, would have to be radically adapted, and I need hardly tell your Lordships that all this would be very expensive, both in capital and in continuous running expenses. It would be very expensive, even if we were starting afresh with a clean slate—and I concede immediately that this is what the noble Lord suggested. He did not claim for one moment that this system should be applied to existing motorways. This means that the 1,000 miles are "out" so far as tolls are concerned, because the whole of it is already so far advanced in planning or otherwise that to adapt it for tolls would be very expensive and would inevitably mean a delay which would be unacceptable.
My Lords, to charge a toll of any significance on motorways would also incur cost of a different kind, and one which is perhaps even more serious. In this country there is a feasible alternative route by conventional roads to every motorway that we have, or are likely to have. It is not for me either to praise or to criticise what is done in other countries, but when we are praising what is being done by way of motorways in some of the countries to which reference has been made I think we should remember that they do not have quite the same alternatives to their motorways that we have, and that they can rely to a greater degree

1759
than we can on what is virtually captive traffic. We know, both from common sense and from the experience of some of the other countries which have tried it, that if you charge a toll on a motorway a lot of traffic will use the alternative route, if there is a route which can in any sense be regarded as a suitable alternative. The amount of traffic thus diverted might be as high as 30 or even 50 per cent. according to the rate of toll.
My Lords, we build our motorways to be used, and to be used to the full. They are intended to syphon off as much traffic as possible from the old, all-purpose roads. This is one way which my right honourable friends hope to reduce both traffic congestion and accidents. Therefore, in so far as traffic which could reasonably use a motorway declines to do so, but uses some less suitable road instead, the motorway is failing to fulfil the purpose for which it was built. It is therefore being less efficient and is producing less value for the money invested in it. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that a motorway toll is a very inefficient and a very expensive way of raising revenue compared with other means; and, on the other hand, a tolled motorway compared with a non-tolled motorway is a very poor investment of our national resources.
I do not want to weary your Lordships with statistics—I intend to follow the noble Lord, Lord St. Just, in keeping them to the minimum; and, in any event, as we do not have any experience of tolled motorways ourselves they would have to be partly conjectural—but I will quote two figures. If we had a toll of 2d., which I understand is a comparable figure, imposed on 1,000 miles of motorway, with no diversion to other routes caused by the toll we might have a total gross revenue—and may I repeat the word "gross"—of £46 million a year at present traffic volumes. This would be equivalent to the revenue which we might expect by putting an extra 2½d. on the fuel tax. In practice, of course, for the reasons that I have explained, the net toll revenue would be far less, perhaps equivalent to 1½d. on the fuel tax. So the heavily taxed motorist could not look to any measure of relief which he would consider worth while, even if we were to accept the proposal of the noble Lord,
1760
Lord Nugent of Guildford, that toll revenue should bring about a corresponding reduction in fuel tax.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, although I am a Southerner I would very happily accept 1½d. per gallon off petrol.
LORD HUGHES: But not if it is going to be matched up by a 2d. a mile toll, surely.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Yes, I would.
LORD HUGHES: As a Northerner, I just do not understand the logic of that. If we are going to hand out 3d., we prefer to get 6d. back, and not to shift 3d. from one pocket to another.
Incidentally, my Lords, I am cutting out a great deal of what I intended to say because everybody else has been brief and I want to cut down my speech as much as possible without cutting out any of the "meat." More fundamentally, perhaps, whichever way the finance is raised, motorways are not made with notes and coins of the realm: they are made with national resources of skilled labour and materials; and when we talk of the proper size of the road programme we are really talking about the proportion of our national resources which should properly be devoted to the building of roads. To raise new capital by means of toll revenue will not increase our national resources: in fact, it will reduce them by the amount needed for building toll plazas and otherwise adapting the system.
So the real problem in building roads, I suggest to your Lordships, is finding the resources to build them, which must unavoidably be at the expense of something else. If we increase the proportion of the national resources going on roads, we diminish it in other directions. Are we going to build fewer houses? Are we going to build fewer schools? Are we going to build fewer hospitals? Are we going to build fewer factories? Or are we going to vary the proportions of the national resources from one to the other, giving each at any given time the biggest share of the total which can usefully be devoted to it?
I do not suggest for one moment that the percentage of the national resources

1761
going to each of these subjects in 1967 will necessarily be the right one in 1970, or that it will be the right one in 1973. What must be decided from time to time, and over reasonable periods of years, is how these proportions will be varied so that at all times reasonable amounts are being allocated to all those things which come into top priority in the demands upon our resources. New ways of raising revenue or capital may well facilitate the transfer of resources from one sector of the economy to another but they do no more than that; and the cost of the transfer would in certain circumstances be very high.
The noble Lord, Lord St. Just, referred to the costs of building motorways. I would confirm what he said: that these vary considerably. The figures I have show that the rural two-lane motorway can be built for as little as £600,000 a mile; and that in urban conditions the cost per mile can rise to a level in excess of £2 million per mile.
So far as the future is concerned, I am unable to give any specific figures in this connection, but I can say that the views of the county surveyors have been taken into account in assessing inter-urban road needs for 1970, and some of the schemes in the Trunk Road Preparation Pool will be built as motorways additionally to the basic network. One of the things which contributes to the fact that the programme takes longer is the time and preparation of schemes—the "31 steps" to which my noble friend referred. These procedures—statutory, administrative and financial—are being reviewed. Some improvements can be made without legislation, and these are being done—for instance, eliminating double cost checking—but some changes will have to await legislation.
My Lords, this has been a most interesting discussion. As I have said, my right honourable friends do not have closed minds on the subject of tolls, but I should be leading your Lordships astray if I were to let you think for one moment that it was the subject most likely to be exciting their interests in connection with motorways in the immediate future. I
1762
thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It will be my pleasure to direct the attention of my right honourable friends to what has been said during this debate.

  LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
  LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
  PROBATION ORDERS AND MENTAL TREATMENT
  PROBATION ORDERS AND MENTAL TREATMENT